PDA

View Full Version : Above Average or Slightly Better Then Average


Lip Man 1
11-03-2004, 02:12 PM
You be the judge...

Just for fun... here are the numbers of how the Sox compare to other winning teams in MLB in the 14 years they have won more games then they lost under Uncle Jerry.

I thought it was an interesting exercise.

Oh before anyone says ‘the Yankees skew the numbers...’ Remember from 1979 through 1994 the Yankees NEVER made the post season.

I think this sheds some light on if a 'winning' season, say an average of 83 wins, is ABOVE AVERAGE or SLIGHTLY BETTER THEN AVERAGE.

To me it’s not just semantics, above average conjures up a vision of very good work, just below excellent. Slightly better then average to me notes work that’s just a little better then what everyone does and shouldn’t be considered that good.

Here’s the numbers:

1981: 16 teams with winning records out of 26
Average record winning teams in MLB : 59-48 .551
Average record winning teams in A.L.: 53-48 .524
Sox record: 54-52 .509 (remember this was the split season / strike)


1982: 14 of 26
MLB: 89-73 .549
A.L. : 90-71 .555
Sox record: 87-75 .537


1983: 12 of 26
MLB: 90-72 .555
A.L. : 93-69 .574
Sox record: 99-63 .611


1985: 14 of 26
MLB: 90-72 .555
A.L. : 90-72 .555
Sox record: 85-77 .524


1990: 11 of 26
MLB: 90-72 .555
A.L.: 91-71 .561
Sox record: 94-68 .580

1991: 15 of 26
MLB: 87-75 .537
A.L. : 86-76 .530
Sox record: 87-75 .537

1992: 12 of 26
MLB: 90-72 .555
A.L. : 91-71 .562
Sox record: 86-76 .530


1993: 16 of 28
MLB: 85-77 .524
A.L. : 87-75 .537
Sox record: 94-68 .580


1994: 10 of 28
MLB: 66-47 .584
A.L. : 66-47 .584
Sox record: 67-46 .592 (another strike shortened season)

1996: 14 of 28
MLB: 89-73 .549
A.L. : 89-73 .549
Sox record: 85-77 .524


2000: 16 of 30
MLB: 89-73 .549
A.L. : 88-74 .543
Sox record: 95-67 .586


2001: 16 of 30
MLB: 91-71 .561
A.L. : 93-69 .574
Sox record: 83-79 .512


2003: 18 of 30
MLB: 90-72 .555
A.L. : 91-71 .561
Sox record: 86-76 .530


2004: 16 of 30
MLB: 92-70 .568
A.L. : 92-70 .568
Sox record: 83-79 .512

In 8 of the 14 winning seasons, including the last three in a row, the Sox have underperformed compared to the average record for all 'winning' teams in MLB as well as just the American League. Five of the six years they outperformed the league averages came BEFORE 1994. If you want to get to the playoffs, let alone win a World Series, you have to perform better then your opponents. The Sox are not doing that.

Lip

PavanoBeltran'05
11-03-2004, 02:44 PM
Yeah...they suck. Let's be Red Sox fans.

Some people love to watch baseball games. I for one love to watch baseball games on all levels, from AAA to AA to the majors. It's a great sport to watch and enjoy. It's extremely relaxing to get home from a hard day of work or study (for some fans) and watch some ball.

I know that the ultimate goal is winning the world series for Sox fans. It would be one of the happier days of my life, and I hope I get to see it.
However, when I see a Sox game (even when we're out of it) and watch them win, I'm very happy. It's just great to see your boys come out on top.
If I get to see the Sox win more games in a year than they lose, that meant I was happier than not during that year when I saw a game.

One day, the Sox will win. There's no real use bitching about it because those things are out of mine or anybody else's control, save a couple of guys. What...do you send emails to JR telling him to spend more money? No. Won't work. Do you boycott going to Sox games?? Yeah...go ahead. Then, the Sox don't spend ANY money, and we're rooting for the New Orleans White Sox. That doesn't work, so you go support your team and hope for the best.
You just hope that one day a team comes together like that 1994 Sox team that could've pulled it off and we see them do it.
So, I'm not getting the main point of this thread. Are we to say that we shouldn't be happy getting to watch a season of baseball and see a team that actually is competitive (winning more games on average than they lose??)

Yeah...I get the deal. Life sucks, the Sox are run poorly, yada yada yada. But, you've got to sometimes take a step back and say that the great thing about baseball is we have a team to watch, they don't lose 3/4 of their games, and one day they'll treat us to some magic. Until then, enjoy watching a game in a great country.

Life is MUCH too short.

jabrch
11-03-2004, 02:52 PM
Yeah...they suck. Let's be Red Sox fans.

Some people love to watch baseball games. I for one love to watch baseball games on all levels, from AAA to AA to the majors. It's a great sport to watch and enjoy. It's extremely relaxing to get home from a hard day of work or study (for some fans) and watch some ball.

I know that the ultimate goal is winning the world series for Sox fans. It would be one of the happier days of my life, and I hope I get to see it.
However, when I see a Sox game (even when we're out of it) and watch them win, I'm very happy. It's just great to see your boys come out on top.
If I get to see the Sox win more games in a year than they lose, that meant I was happier than not during that year when I saw a game.

One day, the Sox will win. There's no real use bitching about it because those things are out of mine or anybody else's control, save a couple of guys. What...do you send emails to JR telling him to spend more money? No. Won't work. Do you boycott going to Sox games?? Yeah...go ahead. Then, the Sox don't spend ANY money, and we're rooting for the New Orleans White Sox. That doesn't work, so you go support your team and hope for the best.
You just hope that one day a team comes together like that 1994 Sox team that could've pulled it off and we see them do it.
So, I'm not getting the main point of this thread. Are we to say that we shouldn't be happy getting to watch a season of baseball and see a team that actually is competitive (winning more games on average than they lose??)

Yeah...I get the deal. Life sucks, the Sox are run poorly, yada yada yada. But, you've got to sometimes take a step back and say that the great thing about baseball is we have a team to watch, they don't lose 3/4 of their games, and one day they'll treat us to some magic. Until then, enjoy watching a game in a great country.

Life is MUCH too short.
Best post here in a long long time...

Hangar18
11-03-2004, 02:53 PM
I think what Lips Statistics are really Telling Us, is that in the years
we were Outperforming everyone (before 1994) were also the years
THE SOX WERE SPENDING MONEY (sort of).
The SOX deciding to not spend Money (to fill holes, etc) since 1994
can be seen with how the SOX compare to everyone else. Weve been
an OK team in those years. Being "OK" is ok I guess, gives us something
to do on a warm June Nite, watching our bullpen blow a lead, or heading
to the park to see ex-Sox players with their new teams, having success.
But, Id rather go to the old way, taking a Good Team and making it better
by spending some money instead of trying to cheapskate our way every year ...

Yeah, at least we have a team.

I guess when I joke about Uncle Jerry being Satisfied with ....
"JUST GETTING BY", it really has some merit. Interesting stats Lip

Flight #24
11-03-2004, 02:54 PM
In 8 of the 14 winning seasons, including the last three in a row, the Sox have underperformed compared to the average record for all 'winning' teams in MLB as well as just the American League. Five of the six years they outperformed the league averages came BEFORE 1994. If you want to get to the playoffs, let alone win a World Series, you have to perform better then your opponents. The Sox are not doing that.

LipI asked this in the other thread where you mentioned this analysis, but IMO one thing you miss with this is how often the Sox are among the winning teams compared to the rest of MLB. I would guess that 8 out of the last 14 being winning seasons would put the Sox in the top 5 of MLB over that period. That is, IMO the point - that when compared to the rest of MLB teams, they've been among the most consistently successful (consistently "winning"), but rarely among the "great" teams (which appears to be what you're testing for - being among the best of the "winning" teams). (On a side note, they've also rarely been bad, defined as significantly below .500.)

It seems to me, Lip, that what you're trying to prove is a lot easier to do than you've made it. If you want to define success as the playoffs, then simply count how may times they've made them in the past X years, and rank that. But to use overall record, but for a subset of teams seems like skewing the data to achieve a desired result.

soxfan26
11-03-2004, 02:59 PM
To me it’s not just semantics, above average conjures up a vision of very good work, just below excellent. Slightly better then average to me notes work that’s just a little better then what everyone does and shouldn’t be considered that good.IMO there are 8 'good' teams every year, they play in October. Before the new playoff format it was 4 'good' teams. Everything else is just semantics.

In 8 of the 14 winning seasons, including the last three in a row, the Sox have underperformed compared to the average record for all 'winning' teams in MLB as well as just the American League. Five of the six years they outperformed the league averages came BEFORE 1994. If you want to get to the playoffs, let alone win a World Series, you have to perform better then your opponents. The Sox are not doing that.I'm not sure if this elaborate example was directed at anyone in particular, but you really went around your elbow to get to your ******* on this one.

The only thing that matters is getting to the playoffs and god willing to win it all one day. Maybe then we won't have to discuss whether or not 83 wins makes you better than the Joneses.

A.T. Money
11-03-2004, 04:46 PM
I wonder how many threads Lip will make on these issues. It's pretty tiring if you ask me.

Lip Man 1
11-03-2004, 07:24 PM
Just trying to help A.T. Don't read them if it pisses you off.

Flight....All I'm saying is that the numbers say even when the Sox have a winning season they lose. They don't even measure up to the 'average' winning team in 8 of the 14 years. 83 wins is not 'above average.'

Hell compared to other winning teams you could say it's 'below average' for those years. What some team does, that loses 90 or 100 games a year, I care not a wit.

You are right about one thing and I appreciate it. The bottom line, the 'trump' card (No...not Donald) is championships and or World Series appearances.

In that respect the Sox are abject failures under this ownership and they have no excuse for it given the number of years they have owned the club compared to the successes of the majority of other MLB teams in this regard.

Pavano, I'd like to see one championship before I die. Wait another thirty years you and Jabrch will be the exact same friggin' way. Oh by the way, the Sox signed a new long term lease agreement.

They aren't going anywhere even if less then a million fans showed up. To break the lease would bankrupt the owners and you can bet your ass the city and state would take them to court in a nanosecond.

Lip

Flight #24
11-03-2004, 08:27 PM
Just trying to help A.T. Don't read them if it pisses you off.

Flight....All I'm saying is that the numbers say even when the Sox have a winning season they lose. They don't even measure up to the 'average' winning team in 8 of the 14 years. 83 wins is not 'above average.'

Hell compared to other winning teams you could say it's 'below average' for those years. What some team does, that loses 90 or 100 games a year, I care not a wit.


Lip
Well, I think you're biasing the data and changing the question, but I guess if you want to say "the Sox are among the worse winning teams", that's your right. I still think you're ignoring the frequency of winning and giving any credit to that. The fact that some teams win a lot more and then lose a lot more than the Sox is exactly the point: The Sox don't win a ton, but then never lose a ton, thereby being one of more consistently good teams in terms of record.

I could do the same thing to say...the Boston Red Sox and say "Compared to other teams that have made the playoffs, they've won less", therefore they've been unsuccessful. It would be a conclusion arrived at via biased data IMO, and therefore inaccurate, but it would technically be true.

A.T. Money
11-03-2004, 08:58 PM
I read all the posts Lip. At least I try to. I come to this board to do that. I just don't understand your relentlessness. We know where you stand. The broken record routine is a waste of time.

gosox41
11-03-2004, 11:41 PM
Just trying to help A.T. Don't read them if it pisses you off.

Flight....All I'm saying is that the numbers say even when the Sox have a winning season they lose. They don't even measure up to the 'average' winning team in 8 of the 14 years. 83 wins is

Lip
Why not do a study that shows a team (other then the Yankees and Braves) that beats this. The Sox finish above .500 14 out of the last 24 years. 8 of those years they don't have a winning % better then the average of the winning teams. That means 6 times they do. That's like half the time. I'm curious to see where other teams compare to this. Don't know what it proves, but I'm just curious.


Bob

soxnut
11-03-2004, 11:56 PM
than

WhiteSoxFan84
11-04-2004, 02:56 AM
This maybe a tadbit irrelevant, but maybe one of you can help me. Have the Sox fired or lost any key scouts since 1994? Or maybe since 1998 or 1999? Other than Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Lee, and Mark Buehrle, how many home grown prospects have panned out for the Sox in the past.... DECADE? Now I'm only 19 and my memory before 2000 maybe a little vague, but honestly, we have some of the most pathetic scouting in the world.

How the hell did Mark Mulder, a Chicago product and lifelong Sox fan, go in the 20th rounds of the draft and slipped past our scouts' eyes?
How the hell did they convince KW that Todd Ritchie was worth Kip Wells, Josh Fogg, and Sean Lowe?
How the hell did they not realize how bad Billy Koch really was?
How the hell have Jon Rauch, Felix Diaz, Arnie Munoz, Jason Grilli, and the rest of our "TOP PITCHING PROSPECTS", been so overrated?

Something is DEFINITELY wrong here and it's much deeper than JR's lack of spending and KW's controversial moves.

LAWSfan
11-04-2004, 04:40 AM
How the hell did Mark Mulder, a Chicago product and lifelong Sox fan, go in the 20th rounds of the draft and slipped past our scouts' eyes?
How the hell did they convince KW that Todd Ritchie was worth Kip Wells, Josh Fogg, and Sean Lowe?
How the hell did they not realize how bad Billy Koch really was?
How the hell have Jon Rauch, Felix Diaz, Arnie Munoz, Jason Grilli, and the rest of our "TOP PITCHING PROSPECTS", been so overrated?

Something is DEFINITELY wrong here and it's much deeper than JR's lack of spending and KW's controversial moves.Mudler was the 2nd pick in the 98 draft. Where did you get the 20th round? If he was drafted out of high school in the 20th round that means a lot of teams passed him up, each team at least 19 times, and it was a good decision on his part to go to college.

The Ritchie was a bad trade but Wells and Fogg are at best 3rd and 4th starters. They have no pressure to win for the Pirates and they are basically 500.

Let's see the GM everybody think's is a genius made a trade for Koch from Toronto. He had 36 saves for Toronto in 2001 and had 44 saves for the A's though his ERA was very high in both seasons. Foulke wanted out of Chicago. Do you keep a possible clubhouse cancer or do you trade for a closer who was coming off a pretty good year?

Grilli was drafted by the Giants and traded to the Marlins. He wasn't a top pitching prospect. Some of the others you named got hurt or didn't develop as quickly as the White Sox hoped.

I think part of the problem is the White Sox rush their top pitching prospects. Instead of moving them up slowly, they can go from low A to AA or AA to the majors. Some pitchers can handle that. Other's can't.

PaulDrake
11-04-2004, 09:07 AM
Foulke wanted out of Chicago. Do you keep a possible clubhouse cancer or do you trade for a closer who was coming off a pretty good year?

Unfair to the nth degree. Foulke has adamantly contended that he never wanted to leave the Sox. To even use the phrase "clubhouse cancer", even if it's just "possible" is ludicrous. Foulke is an old school gamer and I'll take him on my team anytime. For the millionth time, the trade that sent Foulke to Oakland was one of the worst in White Sox history. Many of us were not thrilled at the time, and a number of Oakland fans logged on to White Sox message boards to warn us about Koch. Foulke did not want out of Chicago. He was driven out. He's never been anything close to a clubhouse cancer anywhere he has played.

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 09:28 AM
Unfair to the nth degree. Foulke has adamantly contended that he never wanted to leave the Sox. To even use the phrase "clubhouse cancer", even if it's just "possible" is ludicrous. Foulke is an old school gamer and I'll take him on my team anytime. For the millionth time, the trade that sent Foulke to Oakland was one of the worst in White Sox history. Many of us were not thrilled at the time, and a number of Oakland fans logged on to White Sox message boards to warn us about Koch. Foulke did not want out of Chicago. He was driven out. He's never been anything close to a clubhouse cancer anywhere he has played.

Also, let me remind EVERYONE, that the only reason Keith Foulke was "Traded", was because Jerry Rein$dorf wanted to avoid arbitration with Foulkie, knowing he was gonna be taken to the bank. All this talk about trading for a "Real" closer, with a "Fastball" is all Propoganda. They quietly realize they got burned .......


:reinsy " Yeah, but Look at the Money We Saved !!!!!!!"

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 09:31 AM
Also, let me remind EVERYONE, that the only reason Keith Foulke was "Traded", was because Jerry Rein$dorf wanted to avoid arbitration with Foulkie, knowing he was gonna be taken to the bank. All this talk about trading for a "Real" closer, with a "Fastball" is all Propoganda. They quietly realize they got burned .......



Actually, I believe the real concern was that Foulke would have been a 1-year & out closer when he hit FA (or they'd have to commit to a long-term deal for him, right when they were going to be trying to resign Maggs), whereas Koch was 2 years, then his contract ended right when Maggs did, so they had the flexibility to allocate his money to Maggs or go get a different closer, or a number of other things.

Setting aside that we'd rather have had foulke last year and this year, would you rather have Keith Foulke on the team for 2005 or $7mil to play with? I'd take the latter. IMO, we can get a closer a lot cheaper than 7mil.

Hangar18
11-04-2004, 09:53 AM
Setting aside that we'd rather have had foulke last year and this year, would you rather have Keith Foulke on the team for 2005 or $7mil to play with? I'd take the latter. IMO, we can get a closer a lot cheaper than 7mil.
Good Point, but in hindsight, Having Foulkie the last couple of years MOST LIKELY wouldve had us in the PLAYOFFS the last couple of years. Sure, we had some holes in the lineup the SOX themselves CREATED And/Of IGNORED,
but the BULLPEN was the biggest hole, with Billy Koch. Keith Foulke on the SOX in 2003 has us in the Playoffs ......Who knows what coudve happened.
To say " We can get a closer a lot cheaper than 7 million" is buying
right into REIN$DORF Philosophy, and what has gotten us into this predicament
in the first place.


:reinsy
" But we can get a closer a lot cheaper than 7 Million !! "

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 10:37 AM
Good Point, but in hindsight, Having Foulkie the last couple of years MOST LIKELY wouldve had us in the PLAYOFFS the last couple of years. Sure, we had some holes in the lineup the SOX themselves CREATED And/Of IGNORED,
but the BULLPEN was the biggest hole, with Billy Koch. Keith Foulke on the SOX in 2003 has us in the Playoffs ......Who knows what coudve happened.
To say " We can get a closer a lot cheaper than 7 million" is buying
right into REIN$DORF Philosophy, and what has gotten us into this predicament
in the first place.


:reinsy
" But we can get a closer a lot cheaper than 7 Million !! "
Assuming that you believe in SOME sort of budgetary restriction, then there's still a tradeoff. Let's say you have enough $$$ to resign Maggs, then you could have Foulke & Maggs or another closer & Beltran. The latter is still better. Unless you believe in an infinite financial resource, there are better ways to use $7mil than Keith Foulke. I'm not advocating NOT using the $$$, just using it in the most intelligent and productive way.

voodoochile
11-04-2004, 11:12 AM
What was the average record of the playoff teams each of the years the Sox finished over .500?

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 11:57 AM
Voodoo:

That's a great question. Perhaps you can do the match on that one. It took me an hour and a half to do the 14 calculations by hand. Looking up the final records on the computer. It takes a lot of time to be a 'stat geek!.' (I have no idea how those people are able to spend the time needed looking up all those numbers for those goofy fantasy leagues!)

Seriously that could show how far away the Sox were from making the playoffs those 14 winning seasons (or how did they get in.) I'd do it for ALL teams in MLB that made the playoffs and then just single out the A.L.

A.T.:

If you took out all redundent comments, threads ect there would be very few 'original' ideas on these boards. Get used to it or better yet how about starting some 'original' threads since the other ones seem to bother you so much!

I look forward to reading the fruits of your brain-power.

Lip

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 12:00 PM
Voodoo:

That's a great question. Perhaps you can do the match on that one. It took me an hour and a half to do the 14 calculations by hand. Looking up the final records on the computer.

Seriously that could show how far away the Sox were from making the playoffs those 14 winning seasons (or how did they get in.) I'd do it for ALL teams in MLB that made the playoffs and then just single out the A.L.

Lip
Again - what you're trying to prove is that the Sox have not been among the best teams in baseball, a point which I don't believe is in debate. That's a far cry from saying that they have not been among the better teams in baseball.

The Sox have consistently been good, rarely great, and rarely terrible. You can take that as a negative if you want to.

mweflen
11-04-2004, 01:06 PM
IMO there are 8 'good' teams every year, they play in October. Before the new playoff format is was 4 'good' teams. Everything else is just semantics.
Could not agree more.

Win-Loss stats are essentially irrelevant unless compared within division. Did anyone care that the Cards won many more games than the Red Sox? Nope. The only W-L numbers that matter are in comparison with our division. I'd much rather have an 85 win club that goes to the playoffs than a 90 win club that finishes second to the Twins.

In our weak division for the past 5 years, having had only 1 playoff appearance is pathetic. Plain and simple.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-04-2004, 01:48 PM
Assuming that you believe in SOME sort of budgetary restriction, then there's still a tradeoff. Let's say you have enough $$$ to resign Maggs, then you could have Foulke & Maggs or another closer & Beltran. The latter is still better. Unless you believe in an infinite financial resource, there are better ways to use $7mil than Keith Foulke. I'm not advocating NOT using the $$$, just using it in the most intelligent and productive way.
Having Foulke & Maggs would be a lot easier and cheaper than having another closer and Beltran. Why you ask? Because we would have been able to re-sign them, negotiating with no competion, because they would be our players. Signing another closer and Beltran means competing with the Yankees, Astros, Cubs, and many other teams, more than likely overpaying them or just simply giving up on them.

Big differenece there my friend. Nonetheless, I somewhat like Shingo as our closer and when Magglio's replacement is signed or promoted from within, I will have my opinion on him.

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 02:12 PM
Having Foulke & Maggs would be a lot easier and cheaper than having another closer and Beltran. Why you ask? Because we would have been able to re-sign them, negotiating with no competion, because they would be our players. Signing another closer and Beltran means competing with the Yankees, Astros, Cubs, and many other teams, more than likely overpaying them or just simply giving up on them.

Big differenece there my friend. Nonetheless, I somewhat like Shingo as our closer and when Magglio's replacement is signed or promoted from within, I will have my opinion on him.
If you're saying that resigning Foulke & Maggs would be cheaper than finding FA replacements I disagree with you. If you could do that, it would be a better approach because you'd have more "freed up" resources, but I don't hink your assumption is correct.

Example: Does it seem to you like Maggs is taking anything less than the max that he'd receive in a free market bidding frenzy? Not me.

LAWSfan
11-04-2004, 02:25 PM
Unfair to the nth degree. Foulke has adamantly contended that he never wanted to leave the Sox. To even use the phrase "clubhouse cancer", even if it's just "possible" is ludicrous. Foulke is an old school gamer and I'll take him on my team anytime. For the millionth time, the trade that sent Foulke to Oakland was one of the worst in White Sox history. Many of us were not thrilled at the time, and a number of Oakland fans logged on to White Sox message boards to warn us about Koch. Foulke did not want out of Chicago. He was driven out. He's never been anything close to a clubhouse cancer anywhere he has played.
Revisionist history here? When Foulke lost his closer job he was a jerk. Much like Nomar was a jerk in the Boston clubhouse this year. Maybe not to the point of being a clubhouse cancer but he wasn't the happiest guy around.

And he did want out of Chicago so he could be a closer again. Remember when Marte and Osuna shared closing duties?

PaulDrake
11-04-2004, 02:34 PM
Chicago White Sox in the Reinsdorf era.

1932-1829 .514 Winning Pct.

Roughly translates into 83-79 per 162 game season.

voodoochile
11-04-2004, 02:38 PM
Chicago White Sox in the Reinsdorf era.

1932-1829 .514 Winning Pct.

Roughly translates into 83-79 per 162 game season.
Or roughly second place and out of WC contention. I know, I know... over that many seasons, there are bound to be abberations, so being that far over .500 probably means several great seasons and a few really bad seasons.

Thing is, I cannot remember any really horrendous seasons since the late 80's. I mean even in 98-99 they finished 2nd or 3rd.

Reinsdorf legacy - playing for second in a two team town AND the worst division in baseball.

:reinsy
"And it's all the fans fault..."

(sound of whip cracking)

:ohno
"Thank you sir, may I have another..."

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 02:45 PM
Or roughly second place and out of WC contention. I know, I know... over that many seasons, there are bound to be abberations, so being that far over .500 probably means several great seasons and a few really bad seasons.

Thing is, I cannot remember any really horrendous seasons since the late 80's. I mean even in 98-99 they finished 2nd or 3rd.


That to me is the key. The Sox have been probably the most consistent team in baseball. They're almost never terrible and they're almost never great. So whereas most teams go through a cycle of greatness & suckiness, with great success and periods of fan desperation, the Sox kind of meander - always in contention, but never being great/dominant.

IMMO it's better to have more variabiity (as long as you have it both up AND down), but it takes being willing to endure the down.

voodoochile
11-04-2004, 02:47 PM
That to me is the key. The Sox have been probably the most consistent team in baseball. They're almost never terrible and they're almost never great. So whereas most teams go through a cycle of greatness & suckiness, with great success and periods of fan desperation, the Sox kind of meander - always in contention, but never being great/dominant.

IMMO it's better to have more variabiity (as long as you have it both up AND down), but it takes being willing to endure the down.
Or the guts, foresight, determination and willingness to spend to avoid the big downs...

Still, give me one pennant - preferably with a WS championship attached and I won't care if the team goes through a rebuilding phase shortly thereafter.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-04-2004, 02:47 PM
If you're saying that resigning Foulke & Maggs would be cheaper than finding FA replacements I disagree with you. If you could do that, it would be a better approach because you'd have more "freed up" resources, but I don't hink your assumption is correct.

Example: Does it seem to you like Maggs is taking anything less than the max that he'd receive in a free market bidding frenzy? Not me.
You make some sense, but the risk you take in FA is an idiot like Tom Hicks paying Alex Rodriguez $252 million. An idiot might pay Maggz $17 mill per for some unknown reason.

Flight #24
11-04-2004, 03:08 PM
Or the guts, foresight, determination and willingness to spend to avoid the big downs...

Still, give me one pennant - preferably with a WS championship attached and I won't care if the team goes through a rebuilding phase shortly thereafter.
I'd agree with you, I think the concern is that if you extend yourself and fail for whatever reason (injuries, poorly timed slumps, etc) then you can set yourself up for the rebuilding without the pennant, and the associated "falling off the table" in terms of attendance.

That or you commit to spending yourself until it works or you end up in what Mike Tyson might have called financial "bolivian".

Lip Man 1
11-04-2004, 03:48 PM
Voodoo:

Well said.

Lip

Mickster
11-04-2004, 03:52 PM
That or you commit to spending yourself until it works or you end up in what Mike Tyson might have called financial "bolivian".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Tyson127.jpg
"Spending confuciously will put you in a financial bolivian!"

LAWSfan
11-05-2004, 03:57 AM
You make some sense, but the risk you take in FA is an idiot like Tom Hicks paying Alex Rodriguez $252 million. An idiot might pay Maggz $17 mill per for some unknown reason.
Nobody is going to pay Maggs $17mil. a year. Especially coming off an injury. You can make a case that ARod is worth $252mil. But nobody can say that Maggs is worth $17mil a year. Way too much baggage.

jabrch
11-05-2004, 08:05 AM
Or the guts, foresight, determination and willingness to spend to avoid the big downs...

Still, give me one pennant - preferably with a WS championship attached and I won't care if the team goes through a rebuilding phase shortly thereafter.
I just don't believe that this represents the true path that a majority of the fans here would take - if we ever actually had a rebuilding phase, rather than finish second place and in the running so consistently.

With as bitter, crochetty, nasty, obnoxious and negative as some people are now around here, a rebuilding phase would only bring out more of that.

Be careful what you wish for...

voodoochile
11-05-2004, 09:21 AM
I just don't believe that this represents the true path that a majority of the fans here would take - if we ever actually had a rebuilding phase, rather than finish second place and in the running so consistently.

With as bitter, crochetty, nasty, obnoxious and negative as some people are now around here, a rebuilding phase would only bring out more of that.

Be careful what you wish for...
Maybe we are "bitter, crochetty, nasty, obnoxious and negative" because of the constant walking the middle ground this team does. Not good enough to win the big prize. Not bold enough to spend the difference to get there. Not crazy enough to tear it all down and build a genuine farm system. Not willing to spend the money for proven top notch management talent.

People have been pointing to the Sox winning record as some kind of barometer for success. Well, all those winning regular seasons have still left the team consistently in 2nd or 3rd place. Vince Lombardi had a word for teams like that - losers...

Flight #24
11-05-2004, 09:32 AM
Maybe we are "bitter, crochetty, nasty, obnoxious and negative" because of the constant walking the middle ground this team does. Not good enough to win the big prize. Not bold enough to spend the difference to get there. Not crazy enough to tear it all down and build a genuine farm system. Not willing to spend the money for proven top notch management talent.

People have been pointing to the Sox winning record as some kind of barometer for success. Well, all those winning regular seasons have still left the team consistently in 2nd or 3rd place. Vince Lombardi had a word for teams like that - losers...
Without commenting on the reasons why, at this point, I don't think the Sox can afford to go through a true rebuilding. Attendance & fan intrest would plummet to Expos-like levels, and a 3-5year window of that (which is what most teams that do it go through) would virtually wipe out the team in this city. Just my opinion.

Dan H
11-05-2004, 09:33 AM
The White Sox went into the last five games of the season in 1967 very much in the race. They lost all five and ended up in fourth. Since then they won division titles in 1983, 1993, and 2000. Other than those years, how many times were they in the thick of a divison race during the last week of the season since '67? I may be wrong, but I think the answer is none.

I am not a Cub fan. I am not going to be happy with crumbs from the table. 83 wins don't cut it.

To the person who wrote "life is too short." You are right. Life is short, and many of us would like to see a World Series when we still have regular bowel movements.

mweflen
11-05-2004, 09:45 AM
Maybe we are "bitter, crochetty, nasty, obnoxious and negative" because of the constant walking the middle ground this team does.
Agreed, agreed and more agreed.

I think having a predictably mediocre record is worse for a fan base than having a fluctuating record. Every year, I hear the same thing. "So, the Sox look good now, but when will their fade start? July? August?" or "the Sox are such a tease." And you know what, the word on the street is right.

I'd rather endure some truly terrible seasons if it meant getting the gold ring, as opposed to knowing each year that we'll finish a comfortable second and there will be plenty of apologists who say "well gee, they're above .500 every season - what do you want?"

If it meant losing some fans, I say good riddance. Sometimes you have to set fire to the prairie to make it fertile again. I firmly believe that the truly hardcore Sox fan base would support their team through it, given a fair pricing structure.

jabrch
11-05-2004, 09:54 AM
Agreed, agreed and more agreed.

I think having a predictably mediocre record is worse for a fan base than having a fluctuating record. Every year, I hear the same thing. "So, the Sox look good now, but when will their fade start? July? August?" or "the Sox are such a tease." And you know what, the word on the street is right.

I'd rather endure some truly terrible seasons if it meant getting the gold ring, as opposed to knowing each year that we'll finish a comfortable second and there will be plenty of apologists who say "well gee, they're above .500 every season - what do you want?"

If it meant losing some fans, I say good riddance. Sometimes you have to set fire to the prairie to make it fertile again. I firmly believe that the truly hardcore Sox fan base would support their team through it, given a fair pricing structure.
The problem is that some truly miserable seasons don't guarantee you ANYTHING. We'd spend 5 years in last place to rebuild a farm system and might end up getting nothing out of it. There are no guarantees. We still have a revenue structure that is only capable of supporting a payroll somewhere between 65mm and lets say the outer end of 90mm (I don't know how - but lets say that's possible) We still aren't amongst the top 3 spenders in the AL.

I just don't think that a lot of the people who are saying they'd want a rebuilding would be willing to support a rebuilding. Hell - they aren't willing to support a team that is competitive every year for the division, how are they going to support a team that is in the cellar for 5 years running.

mweflen
11-05-2004, 10:03 AM
The problem is that some truly miserable seasons don't guarantee you ANYTHING. We'd spend 5 years in last place to rebuild a farm system and might end up getting nothing out of it. There are no guarantees. We still have a revenue structure that is only capable of supporting a payroll somewhere between 65mm and lets say the outer end of 90mm (I don't know how - but lets say that's possible) We still aren't amongst the top 3 spenders in the AL.

I just don't think that a lot of the people who are saying they'd want a rebuilding would be willing to support a rebuilding. Hell - they aren't willing to support a team that is competitive every year for the division, how are they going to support a team that is in the cellar for 5 years running.I agree that it doesn't guarantee anything. I think the assumption that the "fire starters" are working under is that having a fire sale and truly rebuilding would result in a plethora of draft picks and young homegrown farm talent, which would provide a relatively inexpensive talent base to build from.

It's a big assumption. If it's a valid one, I'd gladly endure 3 or 4 70-92 seasons to then have a run of 90-72 seasons with division titles.

I agree with your $65-90mm figure. Problem is: running after FA guys like Randy Johnson and Carlos Beltran who want $18mm plus per year is a budget-busting, half-a$$ed way to go. The way to really get the best talent-to-money ratio is to bring the guys up through your own system or trade for young talent, and sign them to slightly longer extensions for less money early.

Kind of like the Mariners are likely to do with Olivo. Sigh... Seems like KW is more apt to trade away young talent than the other way around.

In the end, I guess it's all confusing and frustrating. Why can't JR and KW win on the same budgets as the A's and the Twins? I don't know. I wish I knew. I with THEY knew.

voodoochile
11-05-2004, 10:09 AM
I agree with your $65-90mm figure. Problem is: running after FA guys like Randy Johnson and Carlos Beltran who want $18mm plus per year is a budget-busting, half-a$$ed way to go. The way to really get the best talent-to-money ratio is to bring the guys up through your own system or trade for young talent, and sign them to slightly longer extensions for less money early.

Most teams do it that way, but they occasionally get those high draft picks or spend more money building up the farm system than the Sox do or do it the old budget busting way like the Red Sox did. How many of those guys were home grown this year anyway?

MisterB
11-05-2004, 10:53 AM
Most teams do it that way, but they occasionally get those high draft picks or spend more money building up the farm system than the Sox do or do it the old budget busting way like the Red Sox did. How many of those guys were home grown this year anyway?
Of all the players on the Red Sox postseason roster, only 2 were homegrown - Trot Nixon and Kevin Youkilis.

jabrch
11-05-2004, 11:12 AM
Seems like KW is more apt to trade away young talent than the other way around.

Of all the young talent that KW has traded, how much of it went on to be successful?

It's way to early to guage Olivo and Reed, but even still that got us our #1 or #2 starter, right? I mean - that's a huge myth, that KW is so dumb that he trades all these great young players to get old bad ones.

voodoochile
11-05-2004, 11:21 AM
Imagine if we actually had 125mm to spend on talent?
Imagine is we had an owner who would actually spend it if we did...:?:

mweflen
11-05-2004, 02:38 PM
I think we can reasonably infer from attendance figures who has more $$$ to spend. Minnesota and the Sox have roughly similar attendance - bottom third of the league. coincidentally enough, their payrolls are also very middling.

The Flubs, may they rot, have attendance in the upper third. They also have an upper third budget.

Yankees and Red Sox, etc. etc. It's easy to see where this argument goes.

I think it is foolhardy to assume JR has stashes of money somewhere that he's sleeping on top of and lighting cigars with. Sox attendance and TV deals just don't speak to it. But it sure would be nice if he'd pry open the penny purse just a few million wider, though.

voodoochile
11-06-2004, 02:10 AM
Hal, as long as we are accurately quoting people, my comment was


I never mentioned in that statement what ownership was making, or what profit the franchise had - just what our budget was for talent in response to a discussion of the Red Sox. I'll stand by my point - and my initial comment. Imagine if we actually had 125mm to spend on talent? We don't - KW has somewhere estimated between 65 and 75...who knows - a few bucks more or less either way. But that was the gist of it - the Red Sox had 125mm to spend last year - imagine if we did also...Now imagine if the Sox did it anyway, year in and year out. I mean, spent whatever it took to improve the team in the off-season and then added more talent in the pennant chase. You know, just like the Red Sox have been doing for the last umpteen years. Never giving up, never saying die, never allowing the curse of the Bambino to affect the way they actually do business, but striving to win, signing the players and making whatever trades were necessary to establish a team that always was in contention until one day everything broke right - finally - and the team won the championship.

You think they might be able to afford a bigger budget in a few years? How about 5 years when they had lost out on a pennant or two due to bad luck. How many of us would die for the chance to rip Billy Buckner a new one even once in our lifetime, or curse Bucky Dent, or cry over Fisk's homer not quite being enough.

The Red Sox spend money. They have every year for as long as I can remember. They fight and they bleed and they cry for the chance to win it all. And now they finally have. How different is that whole philosophy from the way our owners do business?

You think the Sox can't afford to spend more?

I say they should be out there trying and dying and bleeding with the fans until they make it happen. Then and only then will I believe they truly care. Then and only then will they be able to say, "we care more than they do." then and only then will they be able to claim that the team is doing whatever it takes to break the string of futility. Then and only then will they be able to cry poor poor me and whine about the fact that they were forced to dump payroll becaue no one supported them no matter what they did.

Otherwise...

(go voodoo... go voodoo... go voodoo..)

:selljerry

(and don't let the door hit your in the ass on your way out of town...)

LAWSfan
11-06-2004, 01:28 PM
Now imagine if the Sox did it anyway, year in and year out. I mean, spent whatever it took to improve the team in the off-season and then added more talent in the pennant chase. You know, just like the Red Sox have been doing for the last umpteen years. Never giving up, never saying die, never allowing the curse of the Bambino to affect the way they actually do business, but striving to win, signing the players and making whatever trades were necessary to establish a team that always was in contention until one day everything broke right - finally - and the team won the championship.

You think they might be able to afford a bigger budget in a few years? How about 5 years when they had lost out on a pennant or two due to bad luck. How many of us would die for the chance to rip Billy Buckner a new one even once in our lifetime, or curse Bucky Dent, or cry over Fisk's homer not quite being enough.

The Red Sox spend money. They have every year for as long as I can remember. They fight and they bleed and they cry for the chance to win it all. And now they finally have. How different is that whole philosophy from the way our owners do business?

You think the Sox can't afford to spend more?

I say they should be out there trying and dying and bleeding with the fans until they make it happen. Then and only then will I believe they truly care. Then and only then will they be able to say, "we care more than they do." then and only then will they be able to claim that the team is doing whatever it takes to break the string of futility. Then and only then will they be able to cry poor poor me and whine about the fact that they were forced to dump payroll becaue no one supported them no matter what they did.

Otherwise...

(go voodoo... go voodoo... go voodoo..)

:selljerry

(and don't let the door hit your in the ass on your way out of town...)
Two reasons the Red Sox are able to spend, spend, spend are a sold out stadium with some of the highest ticket prices in baseball and a cable TV network NESN that brings them even more money. The White Sox do not have either of those.

But with that said, JR hasn't done much to give fans the confidence that he is trying to win. I really think if JR had a sold out stadium and cable TV money, he still wouldn't spend what it takes to win.

jabrch
11-06-2004, 03:04 PM
Now imagine if the Sox did it anyway, year in and year out. I mean, spent whatever it took to improve the team in the off-season and then added more talent in the pennant chase. until one day everything broke right - finally - and the team won the championship.

I'd love to see it - I think we all agree on that.

You think they might be able to afford a bigger budget in a few years? How about 5 years when they had lost out on a pennant or two due to bad luck.
It sure is possible. It is possible that they'd go belly up trying also. We don't know. But what we do know is that there are very few sports franchises out there willing to spend money that they don't have matching revenues for. I think we both agree on that. It is hard to envision too many sports franchises spending "on the come" unless their ownership is willing to, out of their own pockets, back up that come bet. It would be great - but we know the likelihood of it happening here.


You think the Sox can't afford to spend more?
I guess that depends on how we define "afford". I think you and I both know where we stand on this one... :rolleyes:

Lip Man 1
11-07-2004, 01:06 PM
LAW:

The Sox are now equal partners in Comcast Sports Chicago.

Lip

LAWSfan
11-07-2004, 02:15 PM
LAW:

The Sox are now equal partners in Comcast Sports Chicago.

Lip
So? That hasn't brought in any money as of yet. It could. But we'll have to wait and see. NESN has been around forever. They make a ton of money for the Red Sox.