PDA

View Full Version : We didn't look that good in 2000,either.


Jurr
02-18-2004, 11:03 AM
If you remember back to 2000, we weren't very happy as Sox fans. We had an unproven second basemen, a shortstop that had always been inconsistent, hardly anything at 3rd base (Herbert Perry stepped in...Herbert Perry???)....we had James Baldwin and Cal Eldred heading up our staff, and kids were stuck at every position. We ended up with a division title. Let's just see how this thing pans out before we blow our tops.

kittle42
02-18-2004, 11:29 AM
You really do have a point. Go look at that starting rotation from 2000. It sucked on paper. This doesn't take away any of my frustration about the Sox not doing a damn thing positive in the offseason, but you are correct.

Lip Man 1
02-18-2004, 11:30 AM
Jurr:

With respect the past few seasons have shown that the Sox were lucky in 2000.

And that is the point that I and other Sox fans have been making. It's the fact that we are tired of an organization that seems to want to rely on 'luck' to win instead of procurring talent.

The Sox average record for the past six seasons is 83-79. When you see that you know a 95 win campaign was pretty fluky.

And everyone saw what happened in the playoffs didn't they? Luck can only take you so far.

Lip

34 Inch Stick
02-18-2004, 01:14 PM
I'd rather have a great team heading into the season that meets expectations.

akingamongstmen
02-18-2004, 01:21 PM
It's a long season...we all need to calm down a bit. I'm disappointed in the lack of off-season moves, but I want to see some games played before I make any judgments. Anything can happen.

steff
02-18-2004, 01:28 PM
Sometimes it's bad to be more lucky than good..

jeremyb1
02-18-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jurr:

With respect the past few seasons have shown that the Sox were lucky in 2000.

And that is the point that I and other Sox fans have been making. It's the fact that we are tired of an organization that seems to want to rely on 'luck' to win instead of procurring talent.

The Sox average record for the past six seasons is 83-79. When you see that you know a 95 win campaign was pretty fluky.

And everyone saw what happened in the playoffs didn't they? Luck can only take you so far.

Lip

Its got to work both ways Lip. If its possible we were unlucky in '00 its certainly possible we've been unlucky in '01-'03. If you look at the numbers, that's what our pathagorean records suggest. We were quite lucky in '00 surpasing our predicted record by a substantial amount and we've been quite unlucky in '01-'03 losing more games than we should. You can't only take the negative viewpoint.

doublem23
02-18-2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jurr:

With respect the past few seasons have shown that the Sox were lucky in 2000.

And that is the point that I and other Sox fans have been making. It's the fact that we are tired of an organization that seems to want to rely on 'luck' to win instead of procurring talent.

The Sox average record for the past six seasons is 83-79. When you see that you know a 95 win campaign was pretty fluky.

And everyone saw what happened in the playoffs didn't they? Luck can only take you so far.

Lip

Let's also not forget that the rotation that held the team together in 2000 fell apart due to injury in the years past. Yeah, the Sox may have gotten some breaks in '00, but what championship team doesn't? That 2000 was damn good, luck just wasn't on our side for the long run.

Iwritecode
02-18-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
I'd rather have a great team heading into the season that meets expectations.

Me too.

When is the last time we had that?

When is the last time everyone (and I don't just mean Sox fans. I mean nationally) looked at the Sox and said "That's a team that's going to be contending for the WS this year".

1994???

:?:

doublem23
02-18-2004, 02:54 PM
Last year.

poorme
02-18-2004, 02:58 PM
Great logic. Low expectations = success.

Iwritecode
02-18-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Last year.

Last year we still had a lot of question marks at the beginning of the season and a lot of people were still picking the Twins to win the Central.

We had Colon, Burly, Garland and 2 question marks for a rotation.

Jiminez at second.

An upproven Crede and Olivo.

Rowand in center, although I won't start that arguement again.

At this point in time last year I remember thinking the Sox had a pretty good shot at the division and possibly the ALCS but I don't remember anyone picking them to take the pennant.

Huisj
02-18-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Its got to work both ways Lip. If its possible we were unlucky in '00 its certainly possible we've been unlucky in '01-'03. If you look at the numbers, that's what our pathagorean records suggest. We were quite lucky in '00 surpasing our predicted record by a substantial amount and we've been quite unlucky in '01-'03 losing more games than we should. You can't only take the negative viewpoint.

"quite" is a relative term. I think they won maybe 3 more games than expected in 2000, which is pretty much still within random error bounds.

doublem23
02-18-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
"quite" is a relative term. I think they won maybe 3 more games than expected in 2000, which is pretty much still within random error bounds.

You expected the Sox to pick up 20 games in the standings from 1999? Damn, what numbers should I play in the Lotto next time?

Iwritecode
02-18-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
You expected the Sox to pick up 20 games in the standings from 1999? Damn, what numbers should I play in the Lotto next time?

1, 2, 3, 4, 5








“That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard in my life! That’s the kind of combination an idiot would have on his luggage!”



“Did you get the combination?”
“Right here sir!”
“Good. Give it to me.”
“1 2 3 4 5”
“1 2 3 4 5? That’s amazing, I have the same combination on my luggage!”



Sorry, I don’t know why that popped into my head…