PDA

View Full Version : How far away are we?


lowesox
01-27-2004, 01:00 AM
In an effort to get away from the usual topics (KW, Aaron Rowand, Willie Harris...) I thought I'd ask the crowd - how far are the Sox away from a World Series in your opinions? Do you think we have the Veterans in place to make a push? Do you think some of our younger guys like Garland, Olivo and Crede will eventually take us there? Or do you think our roster will have to turn over completely before we have a chance?

ANy thoughts?

voodoochile
01-27-2004, 01:12 AM
I don't think the roster HAS to turn over before they will be competitive, but I think it almost will turn over because they are up against the wall salary wise - so they claim. That means little coming in and lots going out player-wise which naturally means a 2-3 year wait until things get going again.

Of course there is always the possibility that all the Sox wishes will come true this year in terms of player development and by next year they will be back in the pennant hunt...

Dadawg_77
01-27-2004, 01:13 AM
We are one component GM away from winning it all.

CubKilla
01-27-2004, 01:48 AM
Lightyears.

We need a new owner, a better GM, advance scouts that can prep the Sox for games against the likes of Detroit, a CF, a 2B, and 2 SP's.

That's just for starter's. Some here would be for replacing Ozzie Guillen before ST.

jeremyb1
01-27-2004, 02:01 AM
Its always largely a matter of luck. Unless you're the Yankees and you can buy your way into the playoffs every season or you're the A's and have an incredibly shrewd GM, its really hard to make the playoffs consistently. What you need is a competitive team, which we already have, and then a few career years to put you over the top. Look at the Marlins and Angels, the last two world series champs. Neither team was thought to have a series calliber team in the spring but they had a number of players have career years and everything fell into place at the right time.

We're like half or two thirds of the teams in baseball: what we need to win the series is a few career seasons to push us into the playoffs and then the luck necessary to perform well in the playoffs.

npdempse
01-27-2004, 02:18 AM
Barring a fluke like the Marlins (which isn't totally out of the realm of possibility if the farms pay off really well) I don't see it before

a) the area around 35th and Shields gentrifies some more to bring more people and revenue into the park and
b) a new owner moves in who is willing to obtain a smaller profit margin. Even if "they come" per (a) I'm much more inclined to believe JR will pocket it than "build it."

gosox41
01-27-2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
We are one component GM away from winning it all.

Do you mean Competent??? :)

Maximo
01-27-2004, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I don't think the roster HAS to turn over before they will be competitive, but I think it almost will turn over because they are up against the wall salary wise - so they claim. That means little coming in and lots going out player-wise which naturally means a 2-3 year wait until things get going again.


Of course there is always the possibility that all the Sox wishes will come true this year in terms of player development and by next year they will be back in the pennant hunt...

Have to agree here....I think we could all answer this question better if we were controlling the purse strings. Management continues to lack a sense of direction when it comes to current roster players and prospects...or at least informing the fans of what that direction is.

Stuff like... this player is our shortstop for the next 5 years; this guy will be our Ace for the next several seasons; these prospects are untouchable......so let's make a long term committment to these guys and go searching to take care of areas that we have concerns.

That being said....yeah...everybody could have a career year this season. However, to be productive, you ususally have to be in a positive state of mind. Let's see......Reinsdorf is my owner, Kenny's my boss, Ozzie's the guy running the clubhouse.............

SEALgep
01-27-2004, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
Do you mean Competent??? :) There isn't anything wrong with KW. He is one of the better GM's out there. If he had an extra 10 million to work with, we would have the Central locked up. He can only use what he's given, which isn't much.

cornball
01-27-2004, 08:57 AM
How far are we away? ohhhhhh about 30 million!

Seriously, you have to believe you can win it. Noone in the organization...players included, believe they could win it all this year.

jabrch
01-27-2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
We are one component GM away from winning it all.

Not even close...blame KW for a lot of things, but with this roster and this budget, no GM would be able to win ANYTHING.

Hangar18
01-27-2004, 09:58 AM
We are 1 Ownership Change Away from the Series, but thats if the Change happens in the next 3 yrs. Otherwise, ADD 2 to 3
Amateur Drafts to the Equation. Im getting sick of waiting ....

Maximo
01-27-2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
We are 1 Ownership Change Away from the Series, but thats if the Change happens in the next 3 yrs. Otherwise, ADD 2 to 3
Amateur Drafts to the Equation. Im getting sick of waiting ....

You're still a young man.

As for me, I have this re-occurring nightmare. It's the bottom of the 9th in Game 7 of the World Series. Sox are up... down by one run....bases full...two out....3-2 count on the Sox cleanup hitter. On the radio I can hear the announcer say, "and here's the payoff pitch"...........and my wife tells the doctor to turn off the life support.

habibharu
01-27-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Lightyears.

We need a new owner, a better GM, advance scouts that can prep the Sox for games against the likes of Detroit, a CF, a 2B, and 2 SP's.

That's just for starter's. Some here would be for re
placing Ozzie Guillen before ST.

i cant understand why so many people want a better GM! what do you want KW to do when he is already over budget!? its not his fault, its obvoiusly reiney!. i actually love KW because he has the "iwanna win right now" attitude. he doesnt believe in building in the future. he wants to go for it now.

CubKilla
01-27-2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by habibharu
i cant understand why so many people want a better GM! what do you want KW to do when he is already over budget!? its not his fault, its obvoiusly reiney!. i actually love KW because he has the "iwanna win right now" attitude. he doesnt believe in building in the future. he wants to go for it now.

When you have a GM on a limited budget who wastes $6 million this season on a closer that's garbage, I have to fault him. When you have a GM that..... why are we getting back into the pros-and-cons of KW all over again? This horse has been beaten to death.

Bottomline..... KW knows he's under self-imposed budget restraints by his boss. He might become a decent GM if he stops wasting around $10 million of JR's dollars on a piece of ***** like Botch BEFORE HE THROWS PITCH 1 IN A WHITE SOX UNIFORM! Until he does this, he will never win jack on Chicago's Southside.

KingXerxes
01-27-2004, 11:15 AM
I honestly don't think that the White Sox are THAT far away from being able to go to the World Series - and I am being serious.

Look, a lot of this involves luck. If they stay healthy and certain guys can prove that they're not finished but just coming off of a bad year (Konerko and Koch specifically) I can see the White SOx being very competitive. That being said - there is every bit as much of a chance that they'll be dreadful (If Loaiza returns to form, and Konerko and Koch truly have had it).

That's how I view this year coming up. The White Sox certainly aren't "loaded" where you can expect them to win the pennant, but they certainly aren't dead.

Hangar18
01-27-2004, 11:34 AM
KingXerxes, I agree with your statement. However, Im
sticking with all it Taking is ONE OWNERSHIP CHANGE. The SOX are a SLEEPING GIANT, just waiting for One Man to come in,
change the previous regimes Foolish Business Models, and
good times would be here. Guaranteed. I Guarantee it.
When JR eventually gets too old and withers away, watch HOW FAST The SOX Fortunes Change ............ How long that is is really the Question. Time Ticks til that happens and we just have to be a little more patient.

KingXerxes
01-27-2004, 12:04 PM
There is no doubt that the self-imposed budget constraints hurt. The problem with the White Sox roster is that it's too thin. They made it through last season without any real significant down time due to injuries. If they stay healthy again, and certain guys step up - I don't see why they can't win the division.

If they get a shoulder injury or two on the pitching staff, and if a couple of hamstrings are pulled - they have big trouble. Look at the Cubs last year, they lost their starting centerfielder for the year, they lost their best starter for over a month, hell even Sosa missed about 40 games or so due to injury and suspension. They were deep enough to cover for those losses. Unless the White Sox spend some more money acquiring some depth - they could be in for a long season - that or they stay very fortunate and very healthy.

maurice
01-27-2004, 12:45 PM
I'd rather not say "wait 'til next year" before this season even starts, but (since you asked) the only way the Sox make the playoffs in 2004 is if the rest of the division rolls over. While that's entirely possible, it doesn't provide much of a basis for optimism. IMHO, Sox management intends to ride out the current roster for the first half and conduct an even greater free agent purge next season.

Assuming all this (unfortunately) comes to fruition, management has two options:
- drop payroll and rebuild, blaming the fans, or
- attempt to sign some free agents at key positions to play with a younger core of players (Olivo, Crede, Reed, Borchard, Garland, Cotts, Honel, etc.)
Given JR's history, the probable choice is obvious. There's not much light at the end of this tunnel, which is why I was so adamant that the Sox take a different route THIS offseason.

Iwritecode
01-27-2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
That's how I view this year coming up. The White Sox certainly aren't "loaded" where you can expect them to win the pennant, but they certainly aren't dead.

That pretty much describes the team for the past decade or so. When was the last time the Sox were the obvious favorites to win their division? 94?

I almost want to say 2001 but nobody expected them to bust out the way they did in 2000 and most of it was due to career years. Or is that just hindsight?

Lip Man 1
01-27-2004, 01:49 PM
From Bob Vanderburg's interview with WSI. This sums up things perfectly:

ML: The Sox basically say they are a "small market" team even though genuine small markets like Seattle, Cleveland, and Colorado spend a lot more money. In the recent past Florida and San Diego have spent more. As long as the current ownership conducts themselves this way is there any hope of a real championship in the future?

BV: "As long as the current economic system is in place, no they donít... they have no hope for a title. By that I mean at least a pennant. For the Sox to win, they need to increase the payroll and stop being so stubborn about things. They also have to get rid of this feeling of inferiority. To me this approach, "we canít compete with the Cubs," sounds like defeatism. I think fans consider that a slap in the face.

Lip

A. Cavatica
01-27-2004, 09:26 PM
I think we're a below-.500 team that's getting worse, and until we stop getting worse we will never reach the WS.

Take a good hard look at this team. We have terrible ownership that doesn't care about the fans, won't spend money to make money, and won't even consider certain players just because it can't stand their agent (Boras). We have a GM who can't evaluate talent and can't operate within his budget constraints. We have a rookie manager with a big mouth and a small brain. We have a farm system that's been given abundant talent and has produced remarkably few stars -- and doesn't even hang on to the one manager who got his players to overachieve.

Then there are the players. Maggs in RF, Lee in LF, and Thomas (unless he's sulking) are the only consistent hitters. We have no leadoff man, no lefthanded production and no speed. We have two consistent starters, one serviceable one, and two gaping holes. The pen is very weak from the right side.

Think about the turnaround the Red Sox went through when the John Henry ownership bought them. They went from a situation that was only a little better than ours, to having: new, fan-friendly owners with deep pockets and an intense desire to win now; a wunderkind for a GM; a new manager; a lineup with offense at every position; and decent pitching. And they STILL failed to get to the WS, because the manager had a brain cramp at a critical time.

Do you see any hints that the White Sox are about to go through such a transformation? I don't. I think we're going to suck for a long, long time.

doctor30th
01-27-2004, 09:39 PM
Probably another 86 years away. But the good news is that the cubs are probably another 98 years away.

lowesox
01-27-2004, 10:16 PM
Here's what I've been thinking. If you go through the team and give young players who have met some expectations a +, good veterans a +, players who are on their way out a -, and players who's talent is in question (based on recent numbers) a -, this is how our team looks (in my opinion):

1. Harris [ - Hasn't met expectations]
2. Rowand [ - Talent is in question]
3. Thomas [- About to leave]
4. Ordonez [- About to leave]
5. Lee [+]
6. Valentin [- About to leave and does he still have it?]
7. Konerko [- Talent is currently in question]
8. Crede [+]
9. Olivo [+]

SP Loaiza [+/- looked good last year, bad career numbers]
SP Buerle [+/- looks good but on his way out]
SP Garland [+]
SP Showenweiss [-]
SP Pool [-]
CL Koch [-] Marte [+]

This is just how I look at it, but our future doesn't look very bright. My score: 9 Minuses, 5 Pluses and 2 Neutrals. If I'm the GM, I would evaluate the team at midseason and if we're not in contention, consider rebuilding.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-27-2004, 10:23 PM
How far away are we?

Far enough away that it isn't too soon to start thinking about all the alternate ways to spend our spare hours this summer after the team craps out (again).

Daver
01-27-2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
How far away are we?

Far enough away that it isn't too soon to start thinking about all the alternate ways to spend our spare hours this summer after the team craps out (again).

I just got done ordering 120' downriggers for my boat so that I can test out deep trolling for salmon this summer on Lake Michigan.

crector
01-28-2004, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
I think we're a below-.500 team that's getting worse, and until we stop getting worse we will never reach the WS.

We have a farm system that's been given abundant talent and has produced remarkably few stars -- and doesn't even hang on to the one manager who got his players to overachieve.

Who is this manager that you speak of? Jerry Manuel?

For the record, the team went 86-76 in 2003 an above .500 record, not "a below-.500 team" as you wrote. Get your facts straight before posting.

gosox41
01-28-2004, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by crector
Who is this manager that you speak of? Jerry Manuel?

For the record, the team went 86-76 in 2003 an above .500 record, not "a below-.500 team" as you wrote. Get your facts straight before posting.

I'm guessing he meant that the team that won 86 games last season is not the same team coming into this season and is not being projected by him to even finish .500. He is also talking about the future and how things may be getting worse before getting better.

Bob

A. Cavatica
01-28-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by crector
Who is this manager that you speak of? Jerry Manuel?

For the record, the team went 86-76 in 2003 an above .500 record, not "a below-.500 team" as you wrote. Get your facts straight before posting.

Backman, of course, is the manager. I mentioned he worked in the farm system.

I wasn't referring to last season's record, but to my prediction for next season.

voodoochile
01-28-2004, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
Backman, of course, is the manager. I mentioned he worked in the farm system.

I wasn't referring to last season's record, but to my prediction for next season.

That the same Backman who called up Ron Gardenhire and exhorted the Twins to win in September so the Sox would fire Manuel and Backman would get the job?

No thanks. The Sox don't need someone that selfish running the dugout.

SEALgep
01-28-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
That the same Backman who called up Ron Gardenhire and exhorted the Twins to win in September so the Sox would fire Manuel and Backman would get the job?

No thanks. The Sox don't need someone that selfish running the dugout.
In any of our dugouts. Besides, KW said he was going to take the high road one last time when referring to Backman's displeasure. Next time he said he would spill the beans. Translation- he messed up big and they were keeping it under radar so he could work elsewhere if he so desired, but if he tried to drag down the organization, no more Mr. Nice Guy.

A. Cavatica
01-28-2004, 04:22 PM
Regardless of the truth about Backman, he was the only manager in the farm system whose team overachieved. He had very few prospects on that Birmingham roster (and no hitters at all until Reed came up).

soxwon
01-28-2004, 06:46 PM
i think we are there in the series!!!!!!!!!!!!
you got to believe in us we are GODS team.
If the flyin fish can do it so can we
bet on us all the way in 04
put it on the board-SERIES

da reverand

joepoe
01-28-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
In an effort to get away from the usual topics (KW, Aaron Rowand, Willie Harris...) I thought I'd ask the crowd - how far are the Sox away from a World Series in your opinions? Do you think we have the Veterans in place to make a push? Do you think some of our younger guys like Garland, Olivo and Crede will eventually take us there? Or do you think our roster will have to turn over completely before we have a chance?

ANy thoughts?

Far.

hftrex
01-29-2004, 07:23 PM
If just a few of our guys have career years this season, there's no reason why we can't win the World Series.

Lip Man 1
01-29-2004, 08:00 PM
Hftrex says:

If just a few of our guys have career years this season, there's no reason why we can't win the World Series

In other words the Sox have to rely more on luck then on talent....hasn't worked very well the past ten years or so has it?

If "if's and but's; were candy and nuts, then everyday would be Christmas.

Luck is the residue of design-- Branch Rickey

Lip

Mickster
01-29-2004, 08:23 PM
I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Remember, they only need to win 1 more game then they lose each month to end up w/ 87 wins (a possibility). If they start April 2 or 3 games over .500, i'll be somewhat happy. May-July schedule is not as favorable as end of July-Oct.

I can actually see KW's logic as to adding talent mid-season. If they can just hold their own til the break, maybe a few games over .500, they may actually be ok. The 1st half of the schedule is definately more difficult.

If they can make it into the playoffs, its anyone's guess. Any team can win a 5 game series. Just luck from then on....

I'm an optimist, though.

Lip Man 1
01-29-2004, 11:18 PM
It seems like everyone is parroting that line about winning in the playoffs is luck.

Oh really? Does luck beat skill every time?

I grant you it can happen in a five game series where you only need a break or two to steal it (just ask Minnesota / Oakland) but I don't think luck factors into a seven game series. Talent usually wins out. You can luck your way through five games but not seven.

Do the Sox as presently consturcted have the pitching to win a seven game pressure cooker series?

Lip

ma-gaga
01-30-2004, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
It seems like everyone is parroting that line about winning in the playoffs is luck.


Funny this comes up. A Yankees fan blog (http://yankeefan.blogspot.com/) just did a small 'study' on the odds of what the yankees did from 1998 to 2001 (won 13 straight playoff matchups). It's pretty small statistically, but he goes through it pretty succinctly and better than I can.

My answer to original question is:

You need 2 power pitchers
You need 3 other legitimate starting pitchers
You need a closer
You need a manager that doesn't give away games
You need hitters that can manufacture runs
You need to turn balls-in play into outs

It really is a bunch of Joe Morgan-esche cliches. :smile: What do the sox have?

3 legitimate starters, and adequate defense. They may have a closer in Marte, and they may have an adequate manager in Ozzie. I'm concerned with their lack of balance in their lineup, and I don't know how they are going to replace Colon's innings.

red faber
01-30-2004, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Its always largely a matter of luck. Unless you're the Yankees and you can buy your way into the playoffs every season or you're the A's and have an incredibly shrewd GM, its really hard to make the playoffs consistently. What you need is a competitive team, which we already have, and then a few career years to put you over the top. Look at the Marlins and Angels, the last two world series champs. Neither team was thought to have a series calliber team in the spring but they had a number of players have career years and everything fell into place at the right time.

We're like half or two thirds of the teams in baseball: what we need to win the series is a few career seasons to push us into the playoffs and then the luck necessary to perform well in the playoffs.


yeah,but here is the thing....

if you have talented players you can make your own luck...

red faber
01-30-2004, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Its always largely a matter of luck. Unless you're the Yankees and you can buy your way into the playoffs every season or you're the A's and have an incredibly shrewd GM, its really hard to make the playoffs consistently. What you need is a competitive team, which we already have, and then a few career years to put you over the top. Look at the Marlins and Angels, the last two world series champs. Neither team was thought to have a series calliber team in the spring but they had a number of players have career years and everything fell into place at the right time.

We're like half or two thirds of the teams in baseball: what we need to win the series is a few career seasons to push us into the playoffs and then the luck necessary to perform well in the playoffs.


well,you don't necessarily need career years out of your players to win a championships.

you look at the angels and the marlins,they didn't really have anybody that had career years.what they did have were players that knew their roles,and players that produced like they normally do,and they stayed healthy.it's more about execution,than it is luck..

red faber
01-30-2004, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
seven.

Do the Sox as presently consturcted have the pitching to win a seven game pressure cooker series?

Lip [/B]


i'd have to say no!!!!!!!!!

ma-gaga
01-30-2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by red faber
well,you don't necessarily need career years out of your players to win a championships.

you look at the angels and the marlins,they didn't really have anybody that had career years.what they did have were players that knew their roles,and players that produced like they normally do,and they stayed healthy.it's more about execution,than it is luck..

uh... Look at the 2002 Angels (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ANA/2002.shtml) .

Molina - OPS+ 60 - not CY
Spiezio - OPS+ 117 - Career year
Kennedy - OPS+ 113 - Career year
Glaus - OPS+ 115 - not CY
Eckstein - OPS+ 103 - Career year
Anderson - OPS+ 130 - Career year*
Erstad - OPS+ 88 - not CY
Salmon - OPS+ 136 - not CY
Fullmer - OPS+ 137 - Career year*

* 2003 OPS+ > 2002 OPS+, but at the time of the 2002 WS this was their career year.

So 5 career years, 1 non-CY's but with an OPS+ greater than 130!
1 legitimate sinkhole (Spiezio), 1 minor sinkhole (Erstad) and Troy Glaus. Nice freaking lineup.

Starting Pitching wise:
K.Appier - ERA+ 111 - not CY
R.Ortiz - ERA+ 115 - CY
J.Washburn - ERA+ 138 - CY
A.Sele - ERA+ 89 - not CY
J.Lackey - ERA+ 119 - CY

3 career years out of the starting 5. Lackey was a rookie, so he's really hard to quantify, but he was fantastic.

Bullpen:
T.Percival - ERA+ 226 - not his CY!?!?!? oh my god...
B.Webber - ERA+ 170 - CY
A.Levine - ERA+ 102 - not CY
B.Donnelly - ERA+ 199 - CY*
S.Schoenweis - ERA+ 89 - not CY
K.Rod - ERA+ = infinity, only 5.6 innings pitched. - not CY

* 2003 ERA+ > 2002 ERA+, but at the time of the 2002 WS this was his career year.

Percival, Webber, Donnelly, and K.Rod dominated the post-season. Donnelly and Webber were career years, Percival put together his second best season and was dominant. And they 'cheated' the system and got K-Rod on the post-season roster even though he wasn't on the 25 man roster at the beginning of September.

So, no; only the following had their career years: Spezio, Kennedy, Eckstein, Anderson, Fullmer, Ortiz, Washburn, Lackey, Webber and Donnelly. 10 players. The following were dominant despite not having "career years": Salmon, Percival and K-Rod. 3 players. And they had Troy Glaus who had a legitimate "off" year.

I don't have time to do the Marlins right now, but go ahead, rip away.

Hangar18
01-30-2004, 02:22 PM
Like I said, we are One Responsible Owner away from
a Championship

PaleHoseGeorge
01-30-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Like I said, we are One Responsible Owner away from a Championship

Either that, or 2-3 plane crashes away. How many here agree with Kenny? Sure there is *always* hope. :smile:

:KW
"Planes crashes happen all the time so I really don't know why anyone doubts why Willie, Aaron, and Danny can't carry us all the way to 'Point C.'"

lowesox
01-30-2004, 04:47 PM
I'm all for optimism, but all this talk about career years, and only a few breaks here and there to win, is all crap. There isn't a team in the majors who wouldn't win the worldseries if every player on the team had career years and a lot of luck.

Let's be reasonable.

red faber
01-30-2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
uh... Look at the 2002 Angels (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ANA/2002.shtml) .

Molina - OPS+ 60 - not CY
Spiezio - OPS+ 117 - Career year
Kennedy - OPS+ 113 - Career year
Glaus - OPS+ 115 - not CY
Eckstein - OPS+ 103 - Career year
Anderson - OPS+ 130 - Career year*
Erstad - OPS+ 88 - not CY
Salmon - OPS+ 136 - not CY
Fullmer - OPS+ 137 - Career year*

* 2003 OPS+ > 2002 OPS+, but at the time of the 2002 WS this was their career year.

So 5 career years, 1 non-CY's but with an OPS+ greater than 130!
1 legitimate sinkhole (Spiezio), 1 minor sinkhole (Erstad) and Troy Glaus. Nice freaking lineup.

Starting Pitching wise:
K.Appier - ERA+ 111 - not CY
R.Ortiz - ERA+ 115 - CY
J.Washburn - ERA+ 138 - CY
A.Sele - ERA+ 89 - not CY
J.Lackey - ERA+ 119 - CY

3 career years out of the starting 5. Lackey was a rookie, so he's really hard to quantify, but he was fantastic.

Bullpen:
T.Percival - ERA+ 226 - not his CY!?!?!? oh my god...
B.Webber - ERA+ 170 - CY
A.Levine - ERA+ 102 - not CY
B.Donnelly - ERA+ 199 - CY*
S.Schoenweis - ERA+ 89 - not CY
K.Rod - ERA+ = infinity, only 5.6 innings pitched. - not CY

* 2003 ERA+ > 2002 ERA+, but at the time of the 2002 WS this was his career year.

Percival, Webber, Donnelly, and K.Rod dominated the post-season. Donnelly and Webber were career years, Percival put together his second best season and was dominant. And they 'cheated' the system and got K-Rod on the post-season roster even though he wasn't on the 25 man roster at the beginning of September.

So, no; only the following had their career years: Spezio, Kennedy, Eckstein, Anderson, Fullmer, Ortiz, Washburn, Lackey, Webber and Donnelly. 10 players. The following were dominant despite not having "career years": Salmon, Percival and K-Rod. 3 players. And they had Troy Glaus who had a legitimate "off" year.

I don't have time to do the Marlins right now, but go ahead, rip away.



kennedy,anderson,and fullmer did not have career years if you look at their career stats.all of those guys had seasons like those in the past

as far as speizio is concerned,the numbers he put up in 02' are just as good numbers that he put up in the past as well,the only difference is that he got more playing time in 02' than he got in prior seasons.

so if anything the only hitter that had a career year was eckstein.

and how can you call what lackey did a career year,when that was his first year in the league?????

how do you know that he won't do better in the future????


same thing with percival,he had years just as good as what he did in 02' in the past

02' was only donnelly's 2nd year in the league so you can't say that he had a career year because his career is so young.


so as far as their pitching goes,the only guys that had career years were ben weber,jarrod washburn and ramon ortiz.

E Coast Sox Fan
01-30-2004, 10:51 PM
Going back to the original question, I think we're pretty close to being a World Series team. Before everyone jumps on me, consider this:

First, we play in the AL Central. As a result, making the playoffs shouldn't really be that difficult given our core team vs. the other teams in our division. In reality, getting post-season eligible is the biggest hurdle for teams to overcome.

Second, once a team is in the playoffs, there is a lot of luck involved (i.e. it's a crap-shoot for teams with 3-4 quality starters).

As a result, I say we are one quality starter away and one quality CF away from being a lock for the playoffs. After that it's anyone's guess.

Given this analysis, it's a crime Reinsdorf won't take the risk. Can't someone bring charges?

:bluesbros

E Coast Sox Fan
01-30-2004, 10:58 PM
One more thing...

Erstad and Washburn are not the answers.

While they are both fine players, by quaility I mean more of an Ace-type pitcher and CF who not only plays good defense, but can hit for average, steal a few bases, some power and fill that critical leadoff spot were struggling with right now.

gosox41
01-31-2004, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
It seems like everyone is parroting that line about winning in the playoffs is luck.

Oh really? Does luck beat skill every time?

I grant you it can happen in a five game series where you only need a break or two to steal it (just ask Minnesota / Oakland) but I don't think luck factors into a seven game series. Talent usually wins out. You can luck your way through five games but not seven.

Do the Sox as presently consturcted have the pitching to win a seven game pressure cooker series?

Lip

Luck plays less of an impact in a 7 game series but it's still there. It can be anything from a team's closer imploding in Game 1 by giving up seeing eye hits and blowing a 3 run lead and ruining the teams morale to having a weak hitter with 5 career HR's in 10 years hitting a HR off the staff's ace in Game 7 and losing 1-0.

Obviously I'd rather have talent on my team then just rely on luck but ever year in every sport there are some obviously talented teams who fail to get it done.

A team needs a combonation of both. The Cubs/Marlins series is a perfect example. With the Cubs up 3-1 in the series and leading in the 8th inning of game 5, I already had my phone off the hook. I didn't want to hear it from Cub fans because I thought it was inevitable that they were going to the World Series. Until Steve Bartman. And that was a lucky break for us Sox and Marlins fans because it rattled Prior enough, and gave the hitter (I forget who) a second chance to hit.

With the way that Prior, Zambrano, and Wood pitched the second half of last season, who would have thought they would have lost 3 games in a row with those guys on the mound?

Bob

ondafarm
01-31-2004, 10:41 AM
One man stands between the Chicago White Sox and the World series.

Jerry Reinsdorf. If he sells, so much of the Mickey Mouse chinze stuff will end and real professionals will be brought in, with a reasonable budget and the Sox could easily go straight to the Series.