PDA

View Full Version : So much for first place alone


ChiSox7
05-08-2004, 07:24 PM
Twins win 3-2 against Hudson while we continue to stink it up. Twins have 2 wins on their tough road tripa (one of the toughest parts of their schedule all year). So far, we haven't gained any ground. Not good.

I'm certainly not saying the sky is falling, because it's not. There is a long way to go.

I DO know, however, that if we keep saying, "The offense will heat up, we're still near the top," we will soon find ourselves down 4 or 5 games.

This was one of the stretches where we could pick up 2 or 3 games on the Twins against some crappy competition. THe offense is really letting us down.

If they don't pick it up soon, we'll be 5 or 6 games down when Minnesota is beating up on the crappy teams while we suffer through the west coast blues once again. Maggs, Frank, Lee and Paul better get going.

HomeFish
05-08-2004, 07:26 PM
It's gonna be like 2002 all over again. This sucks.

MRKARNO
05-08-2004, 07:27 PM
Every team has a bad stretch. We dont have a 3 game losing streak on the year...yet. I'm most definately concerned, but not too worried. The hitting inevitably will come around. This team is too good offensively to continue hitting this way. The pitching has held up well enough but we need to score 5 runs a game on average to win 90+ this year (about 800 runs on the year)

SEALgep
05-08-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by HomeFish
It's gonna be like 2002 all over again. This sucks. As far as your sig goes, maybe you're bad luck because you bring a negative attitude every where you go.

ChiSox7
05-08-2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Every team has a bad stretch. We dont have a 3 game losing streak on the year...yet. I'm most definately concerned, but not too worried. The hitting inevitably will come around. This team is too good offensively to continue hitting this way. The pitching has held up well enough but we need to score 5 runs a game on average to win 90+ this year (about 800 runs on the year)

I'm totally with you. But I'm worried that it will come around too late, and then leave us when we need it at the end of the year...............again.

My biggest thing is that we need the offense to play well all the time. What if we dont start hitting until late June again like last year. The Twins lost 14 of 16 at one point last year, and they STILL finished in front of us. And I doubt this Twins team will do that again.

I know this team will hit, but they better hurry up and start, or it will be like the last couple of years, and we will be too far behind when they decide they want to hit the baseball.

batmanZoSo
05-08-2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by HomeFish
It's gonna be like 2002 all over again. This sucks.

I know this guy Lip, I think you two would really get along.

MRKARNO
05-08-2004, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by HomeFish
It's gonna be like 2002 all over again. This sucks.

Our hitting is probably about as good as 2002, which is saying a lot because they scored 856 runs which is pretty darn good. Compare the starting pitching staffs though:

2002:
Buehrle, Garland, Wright, Ritchie and Glover

2004:
Buehrle, Garland, Loaiza, Schoeneweis and probably Diaz

Buehrle was solid that year, more so than this year. Garland will be better. Diaz is probably better than Wright. Loaiza and Schoeneweis are light years ahead of Ritchie and Glover, which makes a huge difference. The Pythagorean W/L of that team was 86-76 and they won 5 less than that. This team is going to finish better than it's Pythagorean W/L because we have Ozzie and we're gonna win a large share of the close games. This is a team which probably should win 89-93 wins which should be good enough to win the division. The second place team in the AL Central hasn't won 90 games since the Indians did in 2000 and there's no reason to think in this weakened division that the eventual winner will need more than that this year. The average for the 2nd place team over the past 3 years is 84 wins. I think we can beat that. The Twins are weaker than us and when we both go head to head and down the stretch, we should prevail more often than not. We should win this division and have some october baseball on the south side (and I dont mean october 1-3, which is part of the regular season this year).

voodoochile
05-08-2004, 08:24 PM
WOOHOO! Are you telling me the Sox are still in first? How cool is that?

Come on, people. It's MAY and the Sox have been way better than expected. Keep playing like this and it's going to be a fun season.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-08-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
WOOHOO! Are you telling me the Sox are still in first? How cool is that?

Come on, people. It's MAY and the Sox have been way better than expected. Keep playing like this and it's going to be a fun season.

Exact-o-mundo.

We've played like crap the past week and we're still in first place. We've played a much tougher schedule than the Twinks so far and they still haven't managed to take advantage. And there is still nearly 5 months of baseball to be played.

For Mother's Day weekend, we're right where we want to be.

batmanZoSo
05-08-2004, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Our hitting is probably about as good as 2002, which is saying a lot because they scored 856 runs which is pretty darn good. Compare the starting pitching staffs though:

2002:
Buehrle, Garland, Wright, Ritchie and Glover

2004:
Buehrle, Garland, Loaiza, Schoeneweis and probably Diaz

Buehrle was solid that year, more so than this year. Garland will be better. Diaz is probably better than Wright. Loaiza and Schoeneweis are light years ahead of Ritchie and Glover, which makes a huge difference. The Pythagorean W/L of that team was 86-76 and they won 5 less than that. This team is going to finish better than it's Pythagorean W/L because we have Ozzie and we're gonna win a large share of the close games. This is a team which probably should win 89-93 wins which should be good enough to win the division. The second place team in the AL Central hasn't won 90 games since the Indians did in 2000 and there's no reason to think in this weakened division that the eventual winner will need more than that this year. The average for the 2nd place team over the past 3 years is 84 wins. I think we can beat that. The Twins are weaker than us and when we both go head to head and down the stretch, we should prevail more often than not. We should win this division and have some october baseball on the south side (and I dont mean october 1-3, which is part of the regular season this year).

And the 2002 Twins were very good, better than they are this year by a wide margin. I think we'll win the division if we make a few good trades. We need a leadoff hitter bad, a center fielder. I don't know who's gonna be available like that, but I could see a Kenny Lofton type (only good) really jump starting the offense. And Koch is gonna cost us around 5 games. We need to find a closer too. If we had a great leadoff hitter and closer, we'd be serious contenders, not just division winners.

doublem23
05-08-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Exact-o-mundo.

We've played like crap the past week and we're still in first place. We've played a much tougher schedule than the Twinks so far and they still haven't managed to take advantage. And there is still nearly 5 months of baseball to be played.

For Mother's Day weekend, we're right where we want to be.

What are you talking about George? We pissed away like 11 losses!? We could be 25-2 right now. Where's the razor blades? Where's the arsenic? I'll just end it now before cruel fate slashes me down with her diabolic scepter of under-achievement!

fhqwhgads
05-08-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
We've played a much tougher schedule than the Twinks so far

I must disagree. The schedules are about even so far.

White Sox unique opponents: NYY (good), BAL (ok), TB (bad).
Twins unique opponents: DET (ok), ANA (good), OAK (good), SEA (bad).

How has the Sox schedule been tougher?

PaleHoseGeorge
05-08-2004, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by fhqwhgads
I must disagree. The schedules are about even so far.
....

How has the Sox schedule been tougher?

12 of your 17 wins have come against the A.L. Central and you're going to assert the Twins haven't had the easier schedule?

Hey, you can't keep beating up Cleveland forever.

fhqwhgads
05-08-2004, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
12 of your 17 wins have come against the A.L. Central and you're going to assert the Twins haven't had the easier schedule?

Why, yes. In fact, I think I just did. :D:

Pulling this "12 of 17 wins were vs. AL Central" stat out does not change who has actually played whom. I think that Sox and Twins fans alike should recognize that the teams are fairly competitive and evenly matched.

I'm looking forward to these next couple of weekends, and we can stop pulling out this strength-of-schedule junk. May the best team win (hopefully, without help from the boys in blue).

MRKARNO
05-08-2004, 11:49 PM
The fact remains that both teams are probably where they are because of beating up on the Royals. I would say that the White Sox overall quality of competition has been higher. The Twins are going to play the teams we're playing now when they're playing better (Yanks, Jays). The Sox have the best record based on actual level of play that I've seen in a long while. We're gonna outperform our Pythagorean W/L for the first time since 2000 and that means we'll probably win 90+ games. The Twins are playing near their highest possible level while the Sox are winning while underperforming. If we split the games with the Twins, we will probably come out on top, but if we lose a significant majority of those games then we're in trouble again.

batmanZoSo
05-09-2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
The fact remains that both teams are probably where they are because of beating up on the Royals. I would say that the White Sox overall quality of competition has been higher. The Twins are going to play the teams we're playing now when they're playing better (Yanks, Jays). The Sox have the best record based on actual level of play that I've seen in a long while. We're gonna outperform our Pythagorean W/L for the first time since 2000 and that means we'll probably win 90+ games. The Twins are playing near their highest possible level while the Sox are winning while underperforming. If we split the games with the Twins, we will probably come out on top, but if we lose a significant majority of those games then we're in trouble again.

In 91, we were two under with 87 wins.
In 92, we were even at 86-76.
In 93, we were two OVER with 94 wins.

We were also 3 over Phythagorean W/L in 1983.

That would be a good indication for this year if we played above it.

MRKARNO
05-09-2004, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
In 91, we were two under with 87 wins.
In 92, we were even at 86-76.
In 93, we were two OVER with 94 wins.

We were also 3 over Phythagorean W/L in 1983.

That would be a good indication for this year if we played above it.

Between 97 and 2000 we out performed our pythagorean W/L every year. I give credit to Manuel for outperforming it those three years, especially 1998 when we played almost .500 ball with a pitching staff that wasnt gonna win any games on its own and a Belle-oriented offense. In 2000, we had legitamite offensive talent and when you score nearly 1000 runs it's tough not to win 95 games. The starters on our staff enjoyed career years and that might have had something to do with an excellent bullpen which kept the whole thing together.

Anyways......

The point is that we have a probably as much or more talent than last year and we have 88 Pythagorean wins. If we have that same number, we'll outperform that and have 91ish actual wins and probably win the division.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-09-2004, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Between 97 and 2000 we out performed our pythagorean W/L every year. I give credit to Manuel for outperforming it those three years, ....

Well don't give Manuel all the credit. He wasn't manager in 1997. That was Bozo Bevington wearing the big clown manager's shoes before getting fired in October, '97.

Manuel regressed as a manager his six years here, and I believe it is because his ballplayers finally figured out how clueless and mean-spirited he truly was. That Gandhi image he projected was mere camouflage for his true vindictive nature. I'm guessing his last 2-3 season's slumping Pythagorean numbers back that up?

Good riddins.