PDA

View Full Version : Unbelieveable Statistic


Lip Man 1
09-20-2004, 11:02 PM
This is incredible and says volumes about both the Twins and White Sox:

For the 2003 and 2004 seasons here is the Sox record against the Twins AFTER the All Star Break (when games start to take on added importance) 2-12

For the 2003 and 2004 seasons here is the Sox record against the Twins in September (when games are crucial) 2-9.

The Sox haven't beaten the Twins in September since the night of the Jose Paniagua affair.

Just something to consider.

Lip

Patrick134
09-20-2004, 11:06 PM
Here's another amazing stat. Neither the twins nor the sox have won a world championship this century. Thats a stat that won't change this season.

batmanZoSo
09-20-2004, 11:10 PM
Here's another amazing stat. Neither the twins nor the sox have won a world championship this century. Thats a stat that won't change this season.

Well that's definitely true, but at least they just played their game and won, didn't talk trash like little jealous kids. And with a smaller payroll. It doesn't matter that they're gonna get beat in the first round by the Yankees. They won their little battle with us in all aspects. They were the better team and the bigger team. We were bitter jealous punks.

Lip Man 1
09-20-2004, 11:13 PM
Patrick:

At least the Twins still have a chance to do something don't they? As the stat geeks keep reminding us on these boards, 'anything can happen in a short series...'

Lip

Patrick134
09-20-2004, 11:14 PM
I duno. Winning the division is all well and good, but when all is said and done, 1 team is the Champion, and 29 aren't. the twins may not have been the better team, but they were certainly the healthier one.

Jurr
09-20-2004, 11:21 PM
I think they'll go deep with Santana going twice or three times in a series and Radke, Nathan, and the rest. pitching wins it.

Ask Josh Beckett.

batmanZoSo
09-20-2004, 11:22 PM
If we made the playoffs we can all agree we wouldn't go past the first round right? I know I always thought that. But if it were us in the playoffs it would be a great accomplishment. Since it's the Twins in the playoffs, it's "oh, they'll be one and done, so it doesn't matter...why bother?"

Patrick134
09-20-2004, 11:24 PM
Santana's career playoff mark is 0-2 with a 7.71 era. Radke is hit or miss, he could pitch well or just as easily get rocked. I'll take my chance with the yanks anyday.

Erik The Red
09-20-2004, 11:40 PM
I duno. Winning the division is all well and good, but when all is said and done, 1 team is the Champion, and 27 aren't. Or 29, if you're counting :tongue:

t0071e
09-21-2004, 12:10 AM
Santana's past postseason experience may not be very good, but he's probably gonna win the cy young award this year...I'd give a team with the cy young winner a good chance with him pitching twice in a short series (and he's won 11 games in a row)

mdep524
09-21-2004, 12:35 AM
I duno. Winning the division is all well and good, but when all is said and done, 1 team is the Champion, and 29 aren't. the twins may not have been the better team, but they were certainly the healthier one.
Please. Not only does this statement not reflect the truths about the playoffs (anybody can win, underdogs have pulled it off the last two years), but it also overlooks the inherent joy and pride the Twins and their fans DESERVE for winning the AL Central and going to the playoffs.... three years in a row I might add.

PorkChopExpress
09-21-2004, 10:09 AM
Santana's career playoff mark is 0-2 with a 7.71 era. Radke is hit or miss, he could pitch well or just as easily get rocked. I'll take my chance with the yanks anyday.
Santana turned a corner this year, though (something we're still waiting for Garland to accomplish). You have to admit that. So his stats from past post-season's don't really mean that much to me. He is going into this post-season with confidence and he will do just fine. Radke on the other hand is a different story.

alohafri
09-21-2004, 10:15 AM
Santana turned a corner this year, though (something we're still waiting for Garland to accomplish).
After this year, the only corner I want to see Garland turning is the one that leads him out of town. (Unless we can get a REAL #4 starter and boot him to #5 where he belongs.)

JRIG
09-21-2004, 10:19 AM
Santana turned a corner this year, though (something we're still waiting for Garland to accomplish). You have to admit that. So his stats from past post-season's don't really mean that much to me. He is going into this post-season with confidence and he will do just fine. Radke on the other hand is a different story.
Santana turned that corner last year. He was outstanding. That sais, he's even better this season.

mantis1212
09-21-2004, 10:55 AM
Here's another amazing stat. Neither the twins nor the sox have won a world championship this century. Thats a stat that won't change this season.
Uhhh, but the Twins have won TWO in the past 17 years. We haven't won a playoff series since 1917.

mcfish
09-21-2004, 11:26 AM
I duno. Winning the division is all well and good, but when all is said and done, 1 team is the Champion, and 29 aren't. the twins may not have been the better team, but they were certainly the healthier one.Do we all forget the vast number of Twinkie injuries that kept us in first place through June? Which brings us to the next difference between the Twins and the Sox - the ability to replace injured players. The caliber of individual players may not be as impressive as Maggs and Frank, but the vast number almost makes up for it. This is the list of players that have been on their DL this year: Hunter, Mauer, Koskie, Mientkahfkdaskh, Stewart, Punto, Rivas, Balfour, Ryan, and LeCroy. They had Ford, Punto, Morneau, and Cuddyer when they needed them. The Sox have absolutely no depth.

So I have two points. 1) Don't whine about injuries. It's makes us sound bad anyway, and it's not like the Twins haven't had to deal with injuries this year.
2) I also know it's impossible to replace Maggs and Frank, but we didn't have anybody who could even come close. Who runs/plays in our minor league system and why are they so incredibly ineffective?

LincolnSquareOz
09-21-2004, 11:46 AM
Our depth was a serious weakness this season. Has any part-timer done anything significant aside from Gload, Timo (in spurts), and Uribe (Mr. May)?

Quality depth means having guys who can do different things. You need a speedster who can wield a glove (Willie's future?), you need a guy who can show some power and fill in somewhere in the OF. You need guys who hungerto play and make an impact during every opportunity they are given. Desire is a huge part of the "team" equation.

People can rip Paulie all they want but he and Rowand always show up to play.

Lip Man 1
09-21-2004, 01:33 PM
Quality depth costs money, big money. The Sox claim they don't have it.

Lip

mcfish
09-22-2004, 01:18 AM
Quality depth costs money, big money. The Sox claim they don't have it.

LipThe Sox can claim that all they want and then try to explain why they have had the highest payroll in the division for years and can't even win that. Maggs and Frank weren't hurt the last two seasons. The Twins, the Tigers, the Indians, and the Royals all have far lower payrolls than the White Sox and all of them have more depth than the White Sox. I'm not looking for quality depth here, I'm looking for any single player to come up and fill a hole and make an impact from the Sox minor league system.

HaroMaster87
09-22-2004, 01:35 AM
Uhhh, but the Twins have won TWO in the past 17 years. We haven't won a playoff series since 1917.

Yeah, I was just gonna say the same thing....:D:

kojak
09-22-2004, 10:38 PM
The Sox haven't beaten the Twins in September since the night of the Jose Paniagua affair.

Just something to consider.

Lip

"The Jose Paniagua Affair"...sounds like a bad Alec Baldwin movie.

Ok, so all of his movies are bad movies-- I was just trying to make a point!

Sheesh!

:tongue:

Lip Man 1
09-22-2004, 11:23 PM
Personally it sounds more like the title from an episode of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.

Lip

Gosox1917
09-22-2004, 11:55 PM
Our depth was a serious weakness this season. Has any part-timer done anything significant aside from Gload, Timo (in spurts), and Uribe (Mr. May)?

Quality depth means having guys who can do different things. You need a speedster who can wield a glove (Willie's future?), you need a guy who can show some power and fill in somewhere in the OF. You need guys who hungerto play and make an impact during every opportunity they are given. Desire is a huge part of the "team" equation.

People can rip Paulie all they want but he and Rowand always show up to play.
I have to disagree. The Sox bench is what kept this team's head above water. Gload is hitting over .300 and has had some big hits for us. Timo has come through with big numbers when the ballgame is close and there are runners on. (don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it.) and you want Uribe it hit .400 the entire year? The bench wasn't a serious weakness, the replacements we imported for Thomas and Ordonez, and the pitching was a serious weakness.

Lip Man 1
09-23-2004, 11:37 AM
Let's see...

Alomar, Sandy
Cotts, Neil
Adkins, Jon
Davis, Ben
Jackson, Mike
Gload, Ross (can't field or run worth a damn)

That's six guys on the roster who are 'dead weight.' But yea depth wasn't a problem this year.

Think any other team that called itself a 'contender' had so many bad players on the roster?

I'll give you Timo and Burke (as a 3rd catcher on a good team)

Lip

santo=dorf
09-23-2004, 11:47 AM
Let's see...

Alomar, Sandy
Cotts, Neil
Adkins, Jon
Davis, Ben
Jackson, Mike
Gload, Ross (can't field or run worth a damn)

That's six guys on the roster who are 'dead weight.' But yea depth wasn't a problem this year.

Think any other team that called itself a 'contender' had so many bad players on the roster?

I'll give you Timo and Burke (as a 3rd catcher on a good team)

Lip
Do you watch the Sox out there in Idaho?

I know Daver has defended having Sandy on this team because he calls the games from the bench.

Cotts has been inconsistent but has shown, at times, that he has a lot of promise.

Adkins carried a sub-3.00 ERA through July.

Davis hit over .400 for some time when he first got here, and had some clutch hits against the Tigers, and Boston.

Mike Jackson had a 1.93 ERA after Arpil but then he fell apart. I know you would rather not see a young arm in the bullpen, but we didn't have many options.

Gload has had some clutch hits throughout the year and is a great left-handed bat coming off of the bench. He is a butcher in the outfield, but that is not his postion.

But I'm sure you saw all of this from way out in Idaho.

Irishsox1
09-23-2004, 12:04 PM
For the last three years every move for the Twins has worked on in their favor. They trade away Eric Milton for Carlos Silva and he goes 13 & 8. They lose Joe Mays and Santana goes 19 & 6. The trade for Shannon Stewert and he helps them get to the playoffs, he gets hurt and Lew Ford steps in and hits .301, 15 homeruns and 18 stolenbases. They lose Eddie Guardo to free agency and replace him with Joe Nathan- 43 saves. They got Nathan from SF for Pierzinski, dumping a total jerk on another team. They lose Latroy Hawkins to the Flubbies and J.C. Romero steps up and is dominant as a set-up guy. Yes, they have had injuries, but none of them are season ending (except Maurer, a rookie catcher and Joe Mays), hardly comparable to Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez in the same week. Almost all there scrap heap guys are tough on the Sox, Rick Reed, Henry Blanco, Kenny Rodgers. MLB wanted to "contract" the Twins, although they were never going to, it was a bargining chip for the negotions and the Twins use that as a rallying cry. This orginization has had a lucky horseshoe stuck up its ass for the last 4 years and it can't continue, something has to give. Torri Hunter needs to blow out his knee, there pitchers need torn labrums, more players have to leave via free agency...something has to give!!!!

Lip Man 1
09-23-2004, 12:04 PM
Actually I did. I have a satellite. And my comments stand.

Lip

Lip Man 1
09-23-2004, 12:07 PM
Irish:

It's not luck. Accept it and you'll sleep better at night.

It's called having a tremendous front office, and a minor league scouting division that can actually spot talent PLUS (and this is very important) they don't rush it to the big leagues because they feel they have to get immediate results unlike another organization we all know and love.

Lip

Irishsox1
09-23-2004, 01:14 PM
The difference between losing players for the season and losing a players for a month at a time is often luck. You have to give credit to the Twins that all their all there moves work out, but thats my complaint. Every move has worked out! To give you an example, the Sox trade for David Wells, he gets hurt, the Cubs trade for Nomar he gets hurt, the Dodgers trade for Brad Penny, he gets hurt. It appears that the Twins have a 100% successful rate on every trade, call up or free agent signing. When are the Twins going to have a trade or a signing and the guy sucks, gets hurt and sucks the team down a hole. The Twins success in this area can't last forever, something has to give.

SoxEd
09-23-2004, 06:28 PM
What I'd like to know is precisely how the Twins have managed to win the division again with such a comparatively low payroll.

My question is this: do they keep winning it, or do you think the Sox keep losing it?

If it's the palehose losing it, then what do we have to do to change it around?

We clearly can't say that the divisional title is decided purely on a payroll-$ basis - the Twins' recent record gives the lie to that theory (although I think everyone would be amazed if the Twins won the AL title, let alone the WS, so payroll is clearly important when it comes to WS wins).

So, what is it that we think they're doing right/the Sox're doing wrong?

(NB - I realise that if we had the kosher answer to this, the members of this board would be managing MLB teams and winning WS rings rather than just posting here)

Is it the pressure applied by the Chicago media, or is it lack of Clubhouse Chemistry? If the latter, at whose fault should we lay the blame?

What do y'all think?