PDA

View Full Version : First half report card (CBS)


delben91
07-12-2004, 09:53 AM
Here it is. (http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/reportcards/AL)

One thing to note, likely a typo. The Sox blurb has their record and winning percentage listed as:
First Half: 46-38, .448 (1st in AL Central)

46-38 = under .500?? Uh, what?

Anyway, the Sox grade is lower than that of the Twins, a B to their A-. Detroit received an A, Cleveland a C and Kansas City an understandable F.

iwannago
07-12-2004, 10:50 AM
Maybe that's why there is no baseball on CBS.



:)

NonetheLoaiza
07-12-2004, 10:53 AM
I think that seems about right. The Twins lost Guardado, Hawkins, etc, and survived injuries this year and are still right in the thick of things. The Tigers are a completely different team from last year and look like a ML ballclub. Cleveland should have been a little better this year, hence the C. A B seems about right for the Sox because I think that we should have about a 5 or 6 game lead right now. We have played a little under ourselves at times this year, but are starting now to play like we should.

Tragg
07-12-2004, 10:54 AM
Odd considering most publications picked us behind minny and kc. We've surpassed expectations.

Sell Jerry Sell!
07-12-2004, 11:23 AM
How can a team, that was picked for 3rd by most publications, and is now in first place not get an A? :angry:

elrod
07-12-2004, 11:30 AM
We don't deserve an A. Had Shingo been the closer all year and the team not flopped in NL parks then we'd deserve an A, and we'd be in first by 5 games. As it stands a B is the right grade.

NonetheLoaiza
07-12-2004, 11:37 AM
We've surpassed expectations from the national media, but I think all of us here think we could be alot better than we are right now.

daveeym
07-12-2004, 11:39 AM
We don't deserve an A. Had Shingo been the closer all year and the team not flopped in NL parks then we'd deserve an A, and we'd be in first by 5 games. As it stands a B is the right grade. Totally agree, it's not a slight and rather accurate.

OzzieBall2004
07-12-2004, 08:00 PM
Interesting stuff...the B seems about right, once you factor in the inconsistency of the offense at times and the pitching woes. That series versus the Stinkies will be HUGE, as will the 19 versus an improved Detroit, considering we sucked against their bad squad last year.

idseer
07-12-2004, 10:07 PM
We don't deserve an A. Had Shingo been the closer all year and the team not flopped in NL parks then we'd deserve an A, and we'd be in first by 5 games. As it stands a B is the right grade.
you can't have it both ways. if we were picked for 3rd and are in first and get a B then why is detroit an A? there is only one team worse than them.

it should either be based on expectations at the beginning of the season, in which case the sox are certainly an A , and detroit is a B at BEST ..... or based on what you feel the team should be doing right NOW ... in which case the sox are a B and perhaps an A ( considering there's only 3 american league teams with better records) and detroit is perhaps a C. detroit is NOT better than cleveland, minn. OR the sox.
i'd suggest someone has no clue about their own grading system.

Jerome
07-12-2004, 10:45 PM
The Twins and A's have pretty much the same record, yet the Twinkies get an A and the A's get a C+? Considering the Payroll of the A' s compared with that of Texas, the Angels, and Seattle, the A's should get an A.

elrod
07-12-2004, 11:40 PM
you can't have it both ways. if we were picked for 3rd and are in first and get a B then why is detroit an A? there is only one team worse than them.

it should either be based on expectations at the beginning of the season, in which case the sox are certainly an A , and detroit is a B at BEST ..... or based on what you feel the team should be doing right NOW ... in which case the sox are a B and perhaps an A ( considering there's only 3 american league teams with better records) and detroit is perhaps a C. detroit is NOT better than cleveland, minn. OR the sox.
i'd suggest someone has no clue about their own grading system.
Depends on who made the predictions. Sure, lots of people picked the Sox third but generally most people thought it would be a close race at the top between KC, Minnesota and the Sox. Detroit deserves the A not only for beating expectations but for having as many wins at the AS break as they did all last year (short one). That's a phenomenal turnaround by any standard. On the flip side, even if people had reservations about KC's starting pitching nobody would have picked them to be THIS bad. Thus they deserve an F outright. The Sox are performing a little better than expected but not a ton better. Remember the offseason marketing campaign? The big change was Ozzie. And it's been true. The FA losses have been blessings in disguise - nobody knew Colon would be this bad - but the core of the team was intact from last year to this. So when people picked the Sox to be in third, they probably picked the Sox to end up with a record not far from what they in fact have, maybe 3 or 4 games worse. The B grade is based on pre-season expectations and performance this season against it. We've done better than pre-season expectations but certainly not blown them away. Had we gone 5-4 instead of 2-7 in NL parks, and won those two stinkers out West we would have drastically exceeded expectations and thus earned an A. We didn't, and so we deserve a B.

idseer
07-13-2004, 08:31 AM
Depends on who made the predictions. Sure, lots of people picked the Sox third but generally most people thought it would be a close race at the top between KC, Minnesota and the Sox. Detroit deserves the A not only for beating expectations but for having as many wins at the AS break as they did all last year (short one). That's a phenomenal turnaround by any standard. On the flip side, even if people had reservations about KC's starting pitching nobody would have picked them to be THIS bad. Thus they deserve an F outright. The Sox are performing a little better than expected but not a ton better. Remember the offseason marketing campaign? The big change was Ozzie. And it's been true. The FA losses have been blessings in disguise - nobody knew Colon would be this bad - but the core of the team was intact from last year to this. So when people picked the Sox to be in third, they probably picked the Sox to end up with a record not far from what they in fact have, maybe 3 or 4 games worse. The B grade is based on pre-season expectations and performance this season against it. We've done better than pre-season expectations but certainly not blown them away. Had we gone 5-4 instead of 2-7 in NL parks, and won those two stinkers out West we would have drastically exceeded expectations and thus earned an A. We didn't, and so we deserve a B.
have you totally forgotten how the sox looked this past winter? a team that didn't do all that well last year lost their starting 2nd baseman, starting center fielder, and their ace pitcher. and none of these guys were replaced with anything near their equivalent. konerko was a horrible mess, valentin was bad to the point of becoming a lefty hitter only, garland wasn't any more consistant than he'd been his first year, wright was a mess ......
even loaiza was expected to come back down to earth after his career season. and buehrle was in steady decline. and a vast majority saw oz has a cheap move on the part of jr with no experience and visions of big time trouble between he and thomas.

NO one had a right to expect the sox to be any more than a .500 team this year! if the sox aren't an A at this point then A doesn't exist.

tebman
07-13-2004, 02:26 PM
Here it is. (http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/reportcards/AL)

One thing to note, likely a typo. The Sox blurb has their record and winning percentage listed as:


46-38 = under .500?? Uh, what?


Speaking of typos: if you click on the team hotlink for the Sox on that page, it goes to the Cubs page! :bs:

- tebman

Basten
07-13-2004, 02:58 PM
have you totally forgotten how the sox looked this past winter? a team that didn't do all that well last year lost their starting 2nd baseman, starting center fielder, and their ace pitcher. and none of these guys were replaced with anything near their equivalent. konerko was a horrible mess, valentin was bad to the point of becoming a lefty hitter only, garland wasn't any more consistant than he'd been his first year, wright was a mess ......
even loaiza was expected to come back down to earth after his career season. and buehrle was in steady decline. and a vast majority saw oz has a cheap move on the part of jr with no experience and visions of big time trouble between he and thomas.

NO one had a right to expect the sox to be any more than a .500 team this year! if the sox aren't an A at this point then A doesn't exist.OR.....

People thought the team had underachieved so badly in 2002-2003 under Captain Ghandi, that one of these days/years they were gonna snap back -- perhaps even grossly overachieve, 2000-style.

Optimistic? Sure, but weirder things have happened throughout baseball history........Those people, including myself, were proven to be correct - this team will win at LEAST 90-92 games despite major injuries to Maggs, Frank and possibly Schoenweiss. Just watch.

And who are you to tell anyone what they had a right to expect from a team and what they didn't? Please, it smells like someone's pre-season prediction went a-bust :rolleyes:

Besides.....I can't speak for anyone else, but I made my prediction right after Spring Training; I really liked what I saw from guys like Willie, Uribe, Rowand, Valentin there, and Thomas, Buerhle, Ordonez, Marte, Lee and Co needed no introduction. Cliff Politte hadn't performed as I expected, but then again, Shingo more than made up for it.

Sox get a 'B' because they are still trying to pull the ball too much (which will make them especially susceptable to quality pitching down the line) AND because they went 2-7 in NL parks. Loaiza, Cotts and Garland have been disappointments as well - as has Joe Crede. They should have had a 5 game lead at least if they wanted an 'A' grade mid-way through the season.

Whitesox029
07-13-2004, 11:47 PM
Here it is. (http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/reportcards/AL)


46-38 = under .500?? Uh, what?

Anyway, the Sox grade is lower than that of the Twins, a B to their A-. Detroit received an A, Cleveland a C and Kansas City an understandable F.I think Cleveland gets a B if we're talking exceeding expectations.

And I think you misunderstood that stat....448 isn't our winning percentage, it's our predicted HR total for the season.
:D: