PDA

View Full Version : ESPN.com says Twins and Sox had it easy at the end of '03.


chisoxmike
03-24-2004, 01:19 PM
I don't think the Sox were playing the Tigers and Indians the last week.

The Twins finished four games ahead of the White Sox, playing a schedule of similar ease, so the victory has to be considered a decisive one.

pudge
03-24-2004, 01:24 PM
More stellar journalism from the makers of Dream Job.

sas1974
03-24-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by pudge
More stellar journalism from the makers of Dream Job.

Don't forget about Play Makers!

...although I must admit I watched it.

Do you have a link for the article?

ChiSox14305635
03-24-2004, 01:58 PM
Sox 2nd half schedule since August 1, 2003:


Aug. '03 OPPONENT RESULT REC. WIN LOSS SAVE ATT.
Fri. 1 at Seattle W 12-1 58-51 Colon (9-9) Garcia (9-11) 39,337
Sat. 2 at Seattle L 10-0 58-52 Franklin (8-9) Wright (0-5) 45,719
Sun. 3 at Seattle L 8-2 58-53 Meche (12-7) Buehrle (9-11) 45,632
Mon. 4 Kansas City L 13-9 58-54 Hernandez (6-4) Schoeneweis (2-2) Levine (1) 43,922
Tue. 5 Kansas City W 5-4 59-54 Loaiza (14-5) Snyder (1-6) Marte (8) 38,973
Wed. 6 Kansas City W 4-3 60-54 Colon (10-9) Wilson (5-2) Marte (9) 25,348
Fri. 8 Oakland W 3-2 61-54 Buehrle (10-11) Mulder (15-8) 24,118
Sat. 9 Oakland L 7-2 61-55 Bradford (6-3) Garland (8-8) 36,151
Sun. 10 Oakland W 5-1 62-55 Loaiza (15-5) Harden (3-1) 29,442
Mon. 11 at Anaheim L 10-8 62-56 Weber (3-1) Colon (10-10) 35,889
Tue. 12 at Anaheim W 10-4 63-56 Wright (1-5) Ortiz (13-10) 36,458
Wed. 13 at Anaheim L 2-1 63-57 Rodriguez (6-2) Buehrle (10-12) Percival (24) 37,563
Thu. 14 at Anaheim L 5-1 63-58 Shields (3-3) Garland (8-9) Percival (25) 35,056
Fri. 15 at Texas L 11-5 63-59 Lewis (6-7) Loaiza (15-6) 21,186
Sat. 16 at Texas L 12-8 63-60 Benoit (8-5) Colon (10-11) 40,072
Sun. 17 at Texas L 6-4 63-61 Powell (3-0) Marte (4-2) Cordero (11) 17,015
Mon. 18 Anaheim W 4-2 64-61 Gordon (6-5) Washburn (9-12) 32,381
Tue. 19 Anaheim W 5-2 65-61 Garland (9-9) Shields (3-4) Gordon (7) 22,396
Wed. 20 Anaheim W 5-3 66-61 Loaiza (16-6) Lackey (8-11) Marte (10) 17,879
Thu. 21 Texas W 7-3 67-61 Colon (11-11) Lewis (6-8) Gordon (8) 18,305
Fri. 22 Texas W 7-1 68-61 Cotts (1-0) Dominguez (0-2) 36,311
Sat. 23 Texas W 13-2 69-61 Buehrle (11-12) Valdez (6-8) Wright (1) 33,721
Sun. 24 Texas L 5-0 69-62 Thomson (12-10) Garland (9-10) 29,364
Tue. 26 at New York W 13-2 70-62 Loaiza (17-6) Clemens (12-8) 38,884
Wed. 27 at New York W 11-2 71-62 Colon (12-11) Wells (12-5) 40,654
Thu. 28 at New York L 7-5 71-63 Mussina (15-7) Cotts (1-1) Rivera (29) 40,569
Fri. 29 at Detroit L 8-4 71-64 Robertson (1-0) Buehrle (11-13) 15,828
Sat. 30 at Detroit W 5-2 72-64 Garland (10-10) Maroth (6-19) 15,786
Sun. 31 at Detroit W 6-1 73-64 Loaiza (18-6) Cornejo (6-14) 15,873
Sep. '03 OPPONENT RESULT REC. WIN LOSS SAVE ATT.
Tue. 2 Boston L 2-1 73-65 Burkett (10-7) Colon (12-12) Kim (12) 23,943
Wed. 3 Boston L 5-4 73-66 Kim (7-4) Gordon (6-6) 20,082
Fri. 5 Cleveland W 5-3 74-66 Garland (11-10) Traber (6-8) Gordon (9) 27,196
Sat. 6 Cleveland W 8-5 75-66 Loaiza (19-6) Cressend (2-1) Gordon (10) 24,796
Sun. 7 Cleveland W 7-3 76-66 Schoeneweis (3-2) Baez (1-8) 19,999
Mon. 8 Minnesota W 5-2 77-66 Colon (13-12) Lohse (12-11) 32,807
Tue. 9 Minnesota W 8-6 78-66 Buehrle (12-13) Pulido (0-1) Gordon (11) 27,623
Wed. 10 Minnesota L 4-1 78-67 Santana (10-3) Garland (11-11) Guardado (34) 22,188
Thu. 11 Minnesota L 5-2 78-68 Radke (12-10) Loaiza (19-7) 20,541
Fri. 12 at Boston L 7-4 78-69 Suppan (2-2) Wright (1-6) Kim (13) 34,890
Sat. 13 at Boston W 3-1 79-69 Colon (14-12) Wakefield (10-7) 34,414
Sun. 14 at Boston W 7-2 80-69 Buehrle (13-13) Burkett (10-8) Marte (11) 34,174
Tue. 16 at Minnesota L 5-2 80-70 Radke (13-10) Loaiza (19-8) 32,921
Wed. 17 at Minnesota L 4-2 80-71 Rogers (12-8) Garland (11-12) Guardado (37) 40,304
Thu. 18 at Minnesota L 5-3 80-72 Lohse (14-11) Colon (14-13) Guardado (38) 39,948
Fri. 19 Kansas City W 8-5 81-72 Buehrle (14-13) Carrasco (6-5) Gordon (12) 32,812
Sat. 20 Kansas City L 7-1 81-73 Anderson (13-11) Loaiza (19-9) 37,367
Sun. 21 Kansas City L 10-4 81-74 May (10-7) Garland (11-13) 31,539
Mon. 22 New York W 6-3 82-74 Gordon (7-6) White (2-1) 39,627
Tue. 23 New York L 7-0 82-75 Contreras (7-2) Buehrle (14-14) 31,305
Wed. 24 New York W 9-4 83-75 Loaiza (20-9) Mussina (17-8) 26,019
Thu. 25 at Kansas City L 7-3 83-76 Anderson (14-11) Wright (1-7) 16,438
Fri. 26 at Kansas City W 11-2 84-76 Garland (12-13) May (10-8) 36,598
Sat. 27 at Kansas City W 19-3 85-76 Colon (15-13) Wright (1-2) 37,567
Sun. 28 at Kansas City W 5-1 86-76 Loaiza (21-9) Lima (8-3) 26,261


Yep. That sure is an easy schedule. You know those Yankee, Red Sox, Twins, Royals, A's, Mariner & Angel teams were all a bunch of pushovers.





.

StepsInSC
03-24-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by chisoxmike
I don't think the Sox were playing the Tigers and Indians the last week.

That one quote says nothing about at the "end of the season". So, yes, over the course of the season we had a schedule of similar ease.

chisoxmike
03-24-2004, 02:53 PM
That one quote says nothing about at the "end of the season". So, yes, over the course of the season we had a schedule of similar ease.

Of course, the Sox had NO EXCUSE not to win the divison last year. Losing games to the Tigers and Devil Rays and Rangers lost the divison for us last year. Not to mention the horrible first half of the season.

chisoxmike
03-24-2004, 02:55 PM
Do you have a link for the article?

sure do...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1755919

The quote comes from the Twins recap.

batmanZoSo
03-24-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by chisoxmike
I don't think the Sox were playing the Tigers and Indians the last week.

Finally, indisputable proof that ESPN do not watch the AL Cenral.

hold2dibber
03-24-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by chisoxmike
I don't think the Sox were playing the Tigers and Indians the last week.

The quote is completely accurate - neither it nor anything in the article says anything about the "last week of the season". With that said, IIRC, the Sox did have a harder schedule than the Twins last year based upon their respective inter-league schedules. Can anyone back that up?

In any event, the Sox lost the division last year not because of their discrepancies in schedules, but because they played well-below their talent level for much of the year (and because they, unlike the Twins, had no stones).

pudge
03-24-2004, 06:58 PM
More stellar reporting from the WSI thread posters.

Mohoney
03-25-2004, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by chisoxmike
Of course, the Sox had NO EXCUSE not to win the divison last year. Losing games to the Tigers and Devil Rays and Rangers lost the divison for us last year. Not to mention the horrible first half of the season.

Not to mention JERRY MANUEL!!!

That guy was pure DEATH!!!

chisoxmike
03-25-2004, 11:39 AM
I think some of you guys are missing what I was trying to point out by posting that quote.

ESPN.com said both the Sox and Twins had easy schedules at the end of the season which made the Twins victory in the Central a "decisive one. "

"The Twins finished four games ahead of the White Sox, playing a schedule of similar ease, so the victory has to be considered a decisive one."

That quote is what I had a problem with.

The Sox played the Red Sox, Twins, Yankees, and Royals at the end of the season.

The Twins played the Tigers and Indians at the end.

Granted, the Sox took 2 out of 3 from Boston, 2 out of 3 from Yankees, looking at it, the Twins had the easy schedule.

BUT- yes, the Sox losing to less than steller teams during the course of the '03 season lost the divison for them and not playing up to the level they should've.

ESPN.com could've said something like "The Twins easy schedule at the end of the season helped the Twins to run away with the divison in its final week."

I'm not saying the Sox would've caught up to them if the Twins were playing better teams.

Frater Perdurabo
03-25-2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by chisoxmike
ESPN.com could've said something like "The Twins easy schedule at the end of the season helped the Twins to run away with the divison in its final week."

I'm not saying the Sox would've caught up to them if the Twins were playing better teams.

Playing devil's advocate, though, based on schedules the Sox should have had a much larger lead going into September based on the fact that they played Detroit, Tampa Bay and Texas earlier in the season. If they had managed to hit at a level at least approximating their ability during the first half of the season, and dominated those cellar dwellers when they played them, as they should have based on talent, the Sox would have walked away with the division.