PDA

View Full Version : SI.com disses (what's new?) the White Sox


WhiteSoxFan84
01-20-2005, 08:41 AM
SI.com (Albert Chen) had a top 5 biggest losers of the MLB offseason that was in the Sun-Times yesterday.

# 5 was the AL Central and they said, "The Indians still take this division by at least three games". Chen also said that the White Sox "have been the most active team but aren't necessarily improved."
#1. Astros
#2. Orioles
#3. AL Pitching
#4. Cubs
#5. AL Central

Here is the link; http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/albert_chen/01/18/daily.blog/index.html.

CHI_SOX_4_LIFE
01-20-2005, 08:47 AM
this is so stupid. just more proof that everyone dislikes the sox for some reason, except for the loyal sox fans. surprised to see the flubs on there, even though their off season was bad, figured since the whole world loved them they wouldnt be up there. but i think the team could take it as motivation to go out and really kick some a**, and i think they will.

Bobby Thigpen
01-20-2005, 08:47 AM
Just out of curiosity was this Chen also one of the multitude of people who said the Royals would run away with the division last year?

WhiteSoxFan84
01-20-2005, 08:57 AM
Just out of curiosity was this Chen also one of the multitude of people who said the Royals would run away with the division last year?

I don't know but I'm pretty sure he picked the Phoenix Suns to win the 74 games and the NBA Championship a couple of weeks ago.

infohawk
01-20-2005, 09:03 AM
Keep in mind that this guy is just offering opinions bereft of any analysis. He doesn't explain why he thinks Cleveland will win the division by three games, why the White Sox haven't improved, or why he thinks the Sox-Brewers trade was "barely even." He also fails to note the significance of the improvement to the Sox pitching staff, from adding another starter to strengthening the bullpen. Additionally, he makes the mistake of viewing the Lee for Podsednik/Vizcaino trade in a vacuum. He doesn't recognize that essentially it was Lee for Podsednik, Vizcaino, Hernandez and Pierzynski.

DC Sox Fan
01-20-2005, 09:05 AM
#4. Cubs
#5. AL Central DAMN IT! PLAYING 2ND FIDDLE TO THE CUBS AGAIN!!!!:angry:

SaltyPretzel
01-20-2005, 09:09 AM
Well, you know what they said last year:

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2004/0405_large.jpg

hold2dibber
01-20-2005, 09:16 AM
this is so stupid. just more proof that everyone dislikes the sox for some reason, except for the loyal sox fans. surprised to see the flubs on there, even though their off season was bad, figured since the whole world loved them they wouldnt be up there. but i think the team could take it as motivation to go out and really kick some a**, and i think they will.

Good Lord, people, don't be so thin skinned. Not every negative analysis of the team or its moves reflects a dislike of the Sox. I don't know how to break this to you, but sometimes the Sox do suck, sometimes they make stupid moves and, yes, sometimes are worthy of negative press. I'm not saying that there isn't some bias in the media, but finding bias in every negative piece makes us all look like whiners.

End of rant.

With that said, I think he's analysis is probably right. The Sox made a lot of moves, but its hard to say yet if they're going to be any better this year. They lost about 100 HRs worth of power with the departures of Lee, Ordonez and Valentin. The pitching staff's success ride on a guy who has missed most of the last two years with injuries (El Duque), a guy who had an ERA well over 5.00 last year (Contreras) and a "gimmick" closer who many believe will come back down to earth this year. And their big off season acquisition was a lead off hitter who hit .244 with an OBP of .313 last year! Don't get me wrong, I like KW's moves this off season; but I don't disagree for a second with anyone who says this team is still full of question marks and may not be any better, when all is said and done, than they were last year.

Hangar18
01-20-2005, 09:31 AM
I dont have a Problem with listing the SOX on this list.

I have a problem with the MEDIA continueing to say the AL Central

is the worst division. Bull. I like that he said the SOX "made alot

of moves, without really getting better"

Tekijawa
01-20-2005, 09:35 AM
I see the AL CENTRAL on the list but I don't see the SOX listed individually on that list, I see AL PITCHING on that list and we have improved in that category with out question...

Flight #24
01-20-2005, 09:36 AM
With that said, I think he's analysis is probably right. The Sox made a lot of moves, but its hard to say yet if they're going to be any better this year. They lost about 100 HRs worth of power with the departures of Lee, Ordonez and Valentin.

Ummm....from last year's 3d ranked offense, they lost a total of about 80HR. Maggs didn't play for most of the year. If you're comparing them to the team from 2003, then sure. But then you should do that for a lot of teams.

They didn't lose Maggs from last year's team, for all practical purposes, he was gone from the 2004 team already. That's like saying the 2005 A's "lost all those Miguel Tejada HRs".

mweflen
01-20-2005, 09:39 AM
Well, in the words of Rodney Dangerfield, the Sox don't get no respect. This is true, any way you slice it. The national media has always been leery of the Sox (at least in the past 2 decades or so), and has never predicted much success for them.

Does it stink? Sure. But is it justified? Well, yeah. The truth is, we've never achieved anything in those last 2 decades. We've seen early exits from the playoffs twice since 1984, and a whole lot of mediocrity otherwise. This is the truth.

I don't see that there is much to debate or discuss. Some uninformed SI writer sticks to the generally held (and generally deserved) opinion of the Sox' prospects. So, I hate to use this, but...

:whocares

Nick@Nite
01-20-2005, 09:49 AM
"3. American League pitching
Heavyweights Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Pedro Martinez have left for the senior circuit. Besides Randy Johnson, the biggest names migrating to the AL are Carl Pavano and Matt Clement. Presenting your 2005 Cy Young winner: Sidney Ponson!"

Chen forgot the teal regarding Ponson.

calderon
01-20-2005, 09:51 AM
Ummm....from last year's 3d ranked offense, they lost a total of about 80HR. Maggs didn't play for most of the year. If you're comparing them to the team from 2003, then sure. But then you should do that for a lot of teams.

They didn't lose Maggs from last year's team, for all practical purposes, he was gone from the 2004 team already. That's like saying the 2005 A's "lost all those Miguel Tejada HRs".

exactly, people always refer to "all these home runs they lost" and forget that maggs didn't hit that many last year. And what about jermaine Dye people forget thisguy, it's not like he's going to hit only 10hr's.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-20-2005, 09:52 AM
And what about jermaine Dye people forget thisguy, it's not like he's going to hit only 10hr's.

He will only hit 10 HRs.... in the month of August.

Flight #24
01-20-2005, 09:53 AM
exactly, people always refer to "all these home runs they lost" and forget that maggs didn't hit that many last year. And what about jermaine Dye people forget thisguy, it's not like he's going to hit only 10hr's.


(steps out on limb)

Dye will hit more HR for the Sox this year than Maggs did last year. There - we upgraded in RF. Take that Albert Chen!

Palehose13
01-20-2005, 10:01 AM
(steps out on limb)

Dye will hit more HR for the Sox this year than Maggs did last year. There - we upgraded in RF. Take that Albert Chen!

:D:

That's a pretty thick limb you're stepping out on. :wink:

Ol' No. 2
01-20-2005, 10:02 AM
(steps out on limb)

Dye will hit more HR for the Sox this year than Maggs did last year. There - we upgraded in RF. Take that Albert Chen!Nine? Boy, you're really taking a chance, aren't you?

kittle42
01-20-2005, 10:04 AM
Good Lord, people, don't be so thin skinned. Not every negative analysis of the team or its moves reflects a dislike of the Sox. I don't know how to break this to you, but sometimes the Sox do suck, sometimes they make stupid moves and, yes, sometimes are worthy of negative press. I'm not saying that there isn't some bias in the media, but finding bias in every negative piece makes us all look like whiners.

End of rant.

I completely agree. It's like some people want Cubbie-like fluff pieces all the time.

MisterB
01-20-2005, 10:14 AM
"3. American League pitching
Heavyweights Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Pedro Martinez have left for the senior circuit. Besides Randy Johnson, the biggest names migrating to the AL are Carl Pavano and Matt Clement. Presenting your 2005 Cy Young winner: Sidney Ponson!"

Chen forgot the teal regarding Ponson.

Well, we could email him this:

:tealpolice:

But I don't think he'd get the reference. :D:

All sarcasm aside, the AL does still have Johnson, Schilling, Zito, Halliday, Santana, Colon, Garcia and Buehrle. He's trying way too hard to make a point by implying Ponson is anywhere near the top of the AL pitching heap right now.

soxtalker
01-20-2005, 10:26 AM
Good Lord, people, don't be so thin skinned. Not every negative analysis of the team or its moves reflects a dislike of the Sox. I don't know how to break this to you, but sometimes the Sox do suck, sometimes they make stupid moves and, yes, sometimes are worthy of negative press. I'm not saying that there isn't some bias in the media, but finding bias in every negative piece makes us all look like whiners.

End of rant.

With that said, I think he's analysis is probably right. The Sox made a lot of moves, but its hard to say yet if they're going to be any better this year. They lost about 100 HRs worth of power with the departures of Lee, Ordonez and Valentin. The pitching staff's success ride on a guy who has missed most of the last two years with injuries (El Duque), a guy who had an ERA well over 5.00 last year (Contreras) and a "gimmick" closer who many believe will come back down to earth this year. And their big off season acquisition was a lead off hitter who hit .244 with an OBP of .313 last year! Don't get me wrong, I like KW's moves this off season; but I don't disagree for a second with anyone who says this team is still full of question marks and may not be any better, when all is said and done, than they were last year.

I agree. In fact, why do people want to see positive reviews from the national media? If anything, maybe we're a bit better off if the other teams in the division are favored. I'd just as soon have other teams take us for granted.

Corlose 15
01-20-2005, 11:20 AM
I honestly don't think that HR is as important as OBP, BA, and RBI. I mean a two run double is more important than a solo homerun. So Jose hit 30 HR last year, he also hit a whopping .216.

I figure Dye should be able to get at least 90 rbis, Pierzynski should pick up at least 70 and if Rowand bats lower in the order his RBIs will probably go up. (Though if Uribe stays in the 2 spot his will probably go down.) If Pods truly has an attitude of just getting on base this year instead of swinging for the fences then I think the offense should be ok.

Also, I believe the pitching staff is much better.
El Duque>Diaz,Cotts,Grilli,Wright
Hermanson>Adkins
Vizcaino>Jackson

I'm cautiously optimistic, it is the White Sox though some something will go wrong.:(:

fquaye149
01-20-2005, 11:24 AM
Good Lord, people, don't be so thin skinned. Not every negative analysis of the team or its moves reflects a dislike of the Sox. I don't know how to break this to you, but sometimes the Sox do suck, sometimes they make stupid moves and, yes, sometimes are worthy of negative press. I'm not saying that there isn't some bias in the media, but finding bias in every negative piece makes us all look like whiners.

End of rant.

With that said, I think he's analysis is probably right. The Sox made a lot of moves, but its hard to say yet if they're going to be any better this year. They lost about 100 HRs worth of power with the departures of Lee, Ordonez and Valentin. The pitching staff's success ride on a guy who has missed most of the last two years with injuries (El Duque), a guy who had an ERA well over 5.00 last year (Contreras) and a "gimmick" closer who many believe will come back down to earth this year. And their big off season acquisition was a lead off hitter who hit .244 with an OBP of .313 last year! Don't get me wrong, I like KW's moves this off season; but I don't disagree for a second with anyone who says this team is still full of question marks and may not be any better, when all is said and done, than they were last year.

Um...first of all, I don't expect optimism from the media in regards to the sox, and I don't begrudge pessism. It's the LAZINESS that bothers me. Last year SI picked the Royals to finish ahead of the Sox forgetting to do any work to realize that the Royals have NO STARTING PITCHING. What happened?...Now everyone's favorite "sleeper team" is the Indians (even on this site among certain sheep). Of course these people don't realize the Indians have little more pitching than the Royals did. When you get past the Big 3 (which ain't so big when you realize cliff lee ain't so good) there's nothing but a broken down gopher serving Millwood.

Now look...we're not going to win the division. Or if we are, we're certainly not favorites, but this is not a Cub fan getting mad that ESPN didn't declare their rotation the BEST OF ALL TIME. This is me, a sox fan frustrated that Sports Illustrated continually takes a lazy approach to their sports research, focusing on what they think hypothetically is right whether the facts support it or not.

For instance, Dibber: Fact The 100 HR we lost...well it was more like 70- Magglio had 9 Home Runs for us. Hell - there's a good chance Podsednik could make that up. Lee had 31 and it's not impossible Dye would have that. Uribe plays a full season at short. Is it impossilbe he will have 20-25? Bing, Bang, Boom. Production replaced. And there's Everett, who is not impossibly beyond a decent year.

The question is, is our outfield right now of Rowand, Pods, Everett(potentially), Dye, with Timo on the bench better or worse than our outfield last year post-Maggs of Lee, Rowand, Gload/Borchard with Timo on the bench? I'm not going to scratch my head too hard over that.

Oh and the "gimmick" closer? the one with 90 MPH fastball and 60 MPH changeups? Not sure Foulke has that kind of stuff...though he's probably just another "gimmick" closer too...

Mohoney
01-20-2005, 11:57 AM
Ummm....from last year's 3d ranked offense, they lost a total of about 80HR. Maggs didn't play for most of the year. If you're comparing them to the team from 2003, then sure. But then you should do that for a lot of teams.

They didn't lose Maggs from last year's team, for all practical purposes, he was gone from the 2004 team already. That's like saying the 2005 A's "lost all those Miguel Tejada HRs".

Right. Dye will provide more offense than the RF spot did in 2004, so it's an upgrade. Takatsu will provide more than the Koch+Takatsu tandem at closer in 2004, so it's an upgrade. Hermanson will be an upgrade over Politte's 2004 in the primary righty setup role, Vizcaino will be an upgrade over Jackson's 2004 in that middle relief role, Politte will be an upgrade over the various minor leaguers that saw time in 2004 as the 5th option in the bullpen, El Duque will be an upgrade over the 5th starter fiasco of 2004, and Pierzynski will be an upgrade at catcher over 2004.

Plus, Podsednik replacing Lee can't really be considered a downgrade as much as a philosophical change. We're asking for markedly different contributions from Podsednik than we would have asked for from Lee. If Podsednik does what we're asking him to do, then the loss of power isn't a factor.

These additions, in my opinion, far outweigh the subtractions of 53 games of Ordonez, and Valentin and Lee in the power department, and I think that the disparity is enough to say that we will definitely improve on those 83 wins.

Just how much we improve on the 83 wins is anyone's guess. If Crede, Harris, and Garland show any improvement at all, Uribe and Rowand don't digress, and Frank gets over 100 games in at DH, I think we easily win over 90 games, and possibly as many as 93 games.

hold2dibber
01-20-2005, 01:26 PM
Ummm....from last year's 3d ranked offense, they lost a total of about 80HR. Maggs didn't play for most of the year. If you're comparing them to the team from 2003, then sure. But then you should do that for a lot of teams.

They didn't lose Maggs from last year's team, for all practical purposes, he was gone from the 2004 team already. That's like saying the 2005 A's "lost all those Miguel Tejada HRs".

Ummm ... you're missing my point. The point was that one of the things the Sox did this offseason is they let Magglio walk. That's a fact. I happen to think it was a good decision under the circumstances, but when you analyze the Sox offseason moves, that factors into the mix, regardless of how much time he played last year. If the Sox released Frank Thomas this offseason, would you consider that irrelevant in analyzing the Sox offseason, since he didn't even play 1/2 year in '04?

hold2dibber
01-20-2005, 01:45 PM
Um...first of all, I don't expect optimism from the media in regards to the sox, and I don't begrudge pessism. It's the LAZINESS that bothers me. Last year SI picked the Royals to finish ahead of the Sox forgetting to do any work to realize that the Royals have NO STARTING PITCHING. What happened?...Now everyone's favorite "sleeper team" is the Indians (even on this site among certain sheep). Of course these people don't realize the Indians have little more pitching than the Royals did. When you get past the Big 3 (which ain't so big when you realize cliff lee ain't so good) there's nothing but a broken down gopher serving Millwood.

The Indians have a lot of question marks, just like the Sox do.

Now look...we're not going to win the division. Or if we are, we're certainly not favorites, but this is not a Cub fan getting mad that ESPN didn't declare their rotation the BEST OF ALL TIME. This is me, a sox fan frustrated that Sports Illustrated continually takes a lazy approach to their sports research, focusing on what they think hypothetically is right whether the facts support it or not.

You're suggesting that as a FACTUAL, objective matter, the Sox' off season moves made them better? Gimme a break. I completely agree with the writer's assessment - maybe they got better, maybe they didn't. If you're suggesting that reasonable minds cannot differ on whether the Sox improved this off season, you've got no credibility.

For instance, Dibber: Fact The 100 HR we lost...well it was more like 70- Magglio had 9 Home Runs for us. Hell - there's a good chance Podsednik could make that up. Lee had 31 and it's not impossible Dye would have that. Uribe plays a full season at short. Is it impossilbe he will have 20-25? Bing, Bang, Boom. Production replaced. And there's Everett, who is not impossibly beyond a decent year.

I didn't say the Sox lost 100 HR, I said they lost players with 100 HR power (combined). And you say the writer was lazy because he ignored FACTS, and what facts do you point to? That Uribe "could" hit 20 or 25 HRs. True - but he also could revert to pre-2004 form and hit 12. And its "not impossible" that Dye will hit 31 HRs this year (of course, it's also not impossible that he puts up another mediocre (at best) 20 HR season). That Everett is not "impossibly beyond" a decent year? Yeah, I guess the writer should have said "the Sox obviously improved because every guy they have who could improve will improve - its a fact!"

After reading your post, I'm left wondering, what's your point? Chen doesn't think the Sox moves necessarily improved the team. Are you arguing that there's no possible basis for that argument except for bias? Give me a break. The Sox have a TON of question marks. If those question marks (Hernandez, Contreras, Crede, Harris, Shingo, Dye, Podsednik, AJ's attitude/effect on chemistry, etc.) break in the Sox favor, we could be in for a great year. If those question marks don't break in the Sox favor (El Duque is done for the year in April, Contreras posts another 5-point-something ERA, Crede remains the worst hitting third basement in the AL, Harris can't hit lefties or steal bases, Shingo comes back to earth, Dye gets hurt again or puts up another 20 HR, 70 RBI year, everyone hates AJ and he can't call a decent game, etc.) they could be lousy. Just because someone in the national media doesn't share your optimism that the question marks will be resolved in the Sox' favor doesn't make that person biased.

infohawk
01-20-2005, 01:51 PM
Plus, Podsednik replacing Lee can't really be considered a downgrade as much as a philosophical change. We're asking for markedly different contributions from Podsednik than we would have asked for from Lee. If Podsednik does what we're asking him to do, then the loss of power isn't a factor.

I think the above argument nails it. Too many baseball "analysts" look at team composition as a zero-sum game. In this view, teams either add or subtract talent. What they don't account for is how sometimes, as is the case with the Sox, teams change strategy and acquire different players to succeed in the new system. If you look at the Sox in the context of a team built around right-handed power hitters, the loss of Ordonez and Lee appears as a set-back. This is largely because of the infatuation with the home run and, even more so, a static view of baseball teams.

I'm going to rant a bit here. Analysts often seem to limit their opinions about a team's future based upon what the team did the year before. It's as if the previous year set the baseline for performance. That's why there are always "surprise" teams. That's why a team like the Royals can go from "we expect them to be awful" in 2003 to "wow, they are really a good team and may win the division" as the 2003 season unfolded to "this team is an up-and-coming team and will contend for the division" when they became chic to sportswriters during the 2003/2004 offseason to "the 2005 Royals will be one of the, if not the, worst teams in baseball" because they were so awful in 2004. In a similar vein, look at how well the Mariners did after losing Randy Johnson and A-Rod. Who thought the 2000 White Sox would win 95 games? Nobody predicted the Twins to go on a run after the 2000 season.

Some analysts are so blinded by the loss of Ordonez and Lee that they don't stop to consider that the slugging percentage lost might be offset by a full season of a reconstructed rotation and bullpen, arguably better defense, the absolute average/.OBP sinkholes at the shortstop and catching positions being addressed and the ability to manufacture more runs playing smallball.

maurice
01-20-2005, 02:00 PM
Everybody calm down.

If you'd like to try to objectively measure the improvement / decline in Sox pitching / offense, please feel free to join us in the "Sox Pitching" and "Sox Power Shortage?" threads. It's really, really hard.
:D:

IMHO, the Sox W/L record will be dramatically affected by the health of Thomas and Hernandez (in addition to other, smaller question marks). Since these factors are impossible for even a card-carrying SABR member with a PhD in Math to predict, we'll have to just wait and see.

WhiteSoxFan84
01-20-2005, 02:15 PM
Everybody calm down.

If you'd like to try to objectively measure the improvement / decline in Sox pitching / offense, please feel free to join us in the "Sox Pitching" and "Sox Power Shortage?" threads. It's really, really hard.
:D:

:duel:

why u trying to steal peeps from my thread? go away! :D:

Rocklive99
01-20-2005, 02:21 PM
These guys are idiots, all you have to do is read any part of the article to find that out. We like better when we fly under the radar anyways :cool:

Flight #24
01-20-2005, 02:46 PM
Ummm ... you're missing my point. The point was that one of the things the Sox did this offseason is they let Magglio walk. That's a fact. I happen to think it was a good decision under the circumstances, but when you analyze the Sox offseason moves, that factors into the mix, regardless of how much time he played last year. If the Sox released Frank Thomas this offseason, would you consider that irrelevant in analyzing the Sox offseason, since he didn't even play 1/2 year in '04?

So if the Sox had called up Ted Williams frozen head to sit on the bench in September, SI could just as easily say "How will they replace a guy who hit .400?", never recognizing that he hit .400 decades ago, not last year.

The point is that the Sox had a great O with minimal contribution from Maggs. So citing his loss as a reason why the O will struggle is an extremely poor argument, and one based on laziness (Oh, Maggs is gone, so they must be losing 35HR & 110RBI from the lineup. I don't have to look up anything on how much he actually contributed).

Sox O was 3d in baseball in 2004 with 865 runs. They will have upgrades over the season-long production in RF & C, likely a downgrade in LF, and likely about the same in the Valentin-Willie swap (trading SLG for OBP). The big ?? is whether or not we get typical production from Frank. If he hits like he did the first half, I'd guess the O will perform marginally worse than it did last year. If he plays a half-season or struggles, it'll still be better than the 2d half last year, which would end up probably around 800-825runs. That's fine, would be top 5-10 in baseball.

Chisox003
01-20-2005, 02:57 PM
The point is that the Sox had a great O with minimal contribution from Maggs. So citing his loss as a reason why the O will struggle is an extremely poor argument, and one based on laziness (Oh, Maggs is gone, so they must be losing 35HR & 110RBI from the lineup. I don't have to look up anything on how much he actually contributed).

Sox O was 3d in baseball in 2004 with 865 runs. They will have upgrades over the season-long production in RF & C, likely a downgrade in LF, and likely about the same in the Valentin-Willie swap (trading SLG for OBP). The big ?? is whether or not we get typical production from Frank. If he hits like he did the first half, I'd guess the O will perform marginally worse than it did last year. If he plays a half-season or struggles, it'll still be better than the 2d half last year, which would end up probably around 800-825runs. That's fine, would be top 5-10 in baseball.

To say that the Sox offense was great last year IMO is wrong....At points, yes it was outstanding...However, this team would go on a run where theyd be scoring 1 or 2/game, and that is why they havent been successful for so long...Consistency is key, and I hope we finally got it, with the pitching and balanced lineup, the goal is to prevent long losing streaks especially late in the season (for example: Late July, early August 2004...), and also to win the key games down the stretch

Flight #24
01-20-2005, 03:05 PM
To say that the Sox offense was great last year IMO is wrong....At points, yes it was outstanding...However, this team would go on a run where theyd be scoring 1 or 2/game, and that is why they havent been successful for so long...Consistency is key, and I hope we finally got it, with the pitching and balanced lineup, the goal is to prevent long losing streaks especially late in the season (for example: Late July, early August 2004...), and also to win the key games down the stretch

You're right, I meant "great from a total runs scored standpoint". IMO, this offense will be more consistent, and will probably score a little less in total and have fewer high scoring games. Which should actually translate into a more effective offense from a winning perspective.

OEO Magglio
01-20-2005, 03:28 PM
I'll be absolutely shocked if Cleveland breaks .500.

SOXintheBURGH
01-20-2005, 03:58 PM
I'll be absolutely shocked if Cleveland breaks .500.

Agreed.

My prediction for Cleveland is 75 wins if they're extremely lucky.

hold2dibber
01-20-2005, 06:36 PM
So if the Sox had called up Ted Williams frozen head to sit on the bench in September, SI could just as easily say "How will they replace a guy who hit .400?", never recognizing that he hit .400 decades ago, not last year.

The point is that the Sox had a great O with minimal contribution from Maggs. So citing his loss as a reason why the O will struggle is an extremely poor argument, and one based on laziness (Oh, Maggs is gone, so they must be losing 35HR & 110RBI from the lineup. I don't have to look up anything on how much he actually contributed).

We're kind of arguing apples v. oranges here and we've veered far from the point I made in my original post. Suffice it to say that I agree generally that if you want to compare the '04 offense with the '05 offense, you have to acknowledge that Maggs was a minimal part of the team in '04 because of his injury. But if you want to consider whether KW's offseason moves made the '05 Sox offense better or worse in terms of what it would have been if not for those moves, you have to consider what you think Maggs would have brought to the table in '05 had he been re-signed (i.e., would the Sox have been better offensively in '05 if they had re-signed Maggs instead of letting him go). It's a complicated question because of all the other variables.

johnny_mostil
01-20-2005, 07:59 PM
They lost about 100 HRs worth of power with the departures of Lee, Ordonez and Valentin.

No, they didn't. To do that they would have to replace them with three guys who will hit zero home runs. They replaced them with three guys who will hit about 70 home runs.

johnny_mostil
01-20-2005, 08:01 PM
I dont have a Problem with listing the SOX on this list.

I have a problem with the MEDIA continueing to say the AL Central

is the worst division. Bull. I like that he said the SOX "made alot

of moves, without really getting better"

I like the fact that nobody seems to understand that Casey Blake, Travis Hafner, Jake Westbrook, Ron Belliard, and Ben Broussard all had seasons all out of whack with anything they ever did before at any level and therefore are not likely to hold their level let alone somehow keep getting better. The Indians lost 83 games with a half-dozen alleged all-stars. Can you say "2004 Royals Lite"?

Flight #24
01-20-2005, 09:12 PM
We're kind of arguing apples v. oranges here and we've veered far from the point I made in my original post. Suffice it to say that I agree generally that if you want to compare the '04 offense with the '05 offense, you have to acknowledge that Maggs was a minimal part of the team in '04 because of his injury. But if you want to consider whether KW's offseason moves made the '05 Sox offense better or worse in terms of what it would have been if not for those moves, you have to consider what you think Maggs would have brought to the table in '05 had he been re-signed (i.e., would the Sox have been better offensively in '05 if they had re-signed Maggs instead of letting him go). It's a complicated question because of all the other variables.

One thing that's not really variable is that Maggs knee is likely in horrible shape, given that GMs interested in talking to him STILL don't feel like they have a good sense of how the knee is (per BAL GM's comments). If Maggs still hasn't submitted to a physical and is still talking about doing one "when teams get serious", it's fairly safe to say that Mags wouldn't be contributing much in 2005.

Another limb, slightly thinner than my last: Dye will out-HR Maggs in 2005.

Dan H
01-21-2005, 09:16 AM
I am with hold2dibber. This team is so full of question marks that it is almost impossible to predict what they will do. And that is what happens when you don't aggressively go after free agents or make real blockbuster trades. You save on salary, in hopes some players who have done it in the distant past can do it again. But those same players can under-achieve and you are then stuck with a 80-win season. I would like to be optimistic but I would like to see the team play about 25 games first before I look forward to the post season.

buehrle4cy05
01-21-2005, 03:51 PM
I like the fact that nobody seems to understand that Casey Blake, Travis Hafner, Jake Westbrook, Ron Belliard, and Ben Broussard all had seasons all out of whack with anything they ever did before at any level and therefore are not likely to hold their level let alone somehow keep getting better. The Indians lost 83 games with a half-dozen alleged all-stars. Can you say "2004 Royals Lite"?

Yeah, but Cleveland has better starting pitching, although their bullpen is still pretty weak.

I've heard way too many times about how the NL Central is so tough and a team could win the AL Central with 85 wins. Truth is, the Cardinals, Astros, and Cubs all have got worse in the offseason, and the Brewers, Pirates, and Reds are going to be hard-pressed to reach .500. In the AL Central, the Sox and Twins are both potential 90 win teams, with Cleveland and Detroit always there to play spoiler, and if Cleveland's bullpen and Detriot's starters improve (which probably won't happen, but it might), they could contend also.

Flight #24
01-21-2005, 04:09 PM
Yeah, but Cleveland has better starting pitching, although their bullpen is still pretty weak.



Wasn't their main addition Kevin Millwood? Look at his #s the past few years, then think about him moving to the AL and a pretty good hitters ballpark. They screm "Jon Garland", except they were put up in the NL where you face 7-7.5 batters.

samram
01-21-2005, 04:12 PM
Wasn't their main addition Kevin Millwood? Look at his #s the past few years, then think about him moving to the AL and a pretty good hitters ballpark. They screm "Jon Garland", except they were put up in the NL where you face 7-7.5 batters.

Not to mention Jake Westbrook has had one good year in the bigs and Cliff Lee was awful in the second half last season.

Lip Man 1
01-21-2005, 05:05 PM
Dan:

As usual... extremely well put.

Lip

fquaye149
01-21-2005, 11:22 PM
Dan:

As usual... extremely well put.

Lip


Even if every single possible player on our team underachieves, I still don't see how this team is worse than last years.

Sorry - but our questions don't add up to <80 wins, no matter how bad the answers. They don't necessarily add up to division winner in any situation, perhaps, but the fact is our bottom of the barrel is about even with last year when you factor in losing lee, but picking up a decent rotation/staff.

Meanwhile, what can you say about cleveland? yes their once in a lifetime peak, assuming everyone (including their ****ty pitching) plays out of their minds is about 83 wins, but anyone who says their trough is more than 70 wins is out of their mind.

- the end.

fquaye149
01-21-2005, 11:26 PM
and before we get the requisite : "we're so much worse than last year" posts, i'd like to know how we are.


Yes, our team last year sucked...but we still didn't win < 80 games. So we lost Lee, Valentin, Loaiza and Davis/Burke...

We had 9 HR worth of Magglio and probably will have Frank the same amount of time this year as last year. Meanwhile we trade Schoenweis, Wright and Loaiza for Contreras, Hernandez and Garcia in the rotation, Mike Jackson and Jon Adkins for Dustin Hermanson and Luis Vizcaino.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE someone explain to me how this team is worse than last years, question marks or NO question marks

(because a question mark I don't remember coming up at the beginning of last season was: Is Magglio going to stay healthy all year?)...you can predict question marks...but the real question marks are unpredicted...all jonathan quinn references aside.

Dan H
01-22-2005, 11:51 AM
and before we get the requisite : "we're so much worse than last year" posts, i'd like to know how we are.


Yes, our team last year sucked...but we still didn't win < 80 games. So we lost Lee, Valentin, Loaiza and Davis/Burke...

We had 9 HR worth of Magglio and probably will have Frank the same amount of time this year as last year. Meanwhile we trade Schoenweis, Wright and Loaiza for Contreras, Hernandez and Garcia in the rotation, Mike Jackson and Jon Adkins for Dustin Hermanson and Luis Vizcaino.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE someone explain to me how this team is worse than last years, question marks or NO question marks

(because a question mark I don't remember coming up at the beginning of last season was: Is Magglio going to stay healthy all year?)...you can predict question marks...but the real question marks are unpredicted...all jonathan quinn references aside.

The team is probably not worse than last year's but it can be if certain things don't pan out.

But the real question shouldn't be whether the team is better than another squad that had a win total in the mid 80's. The question should be is the team ready to step up and be a World Series contender. Winning a weak division or just improving some shouldn't be the goal. Getting to the World Series should be the main goal. Chicago hasn't seen a World Series in 4 1/2 decades. Why should we settle for crumbs?

dcb33
01-22-2005, 02:04 PM
I'm not putting much stock into Mr. Chen's ability to speculate- he can't predict what's going to happen 2 weeks into the future let alone several months.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/albert_chen/09/21/cubs.blog/index.html

The Wunsch
01-22-2005, 02:58 PM
if anything that article gives us a good chance to win the al central. he basically said everyone else got worse, and the whitesox are about the same. I do think we have improved though. this guy failed to mention our two biggest areas of improvement, starting rotation and bullpen.

and I got to agree with the last post. "don't be so thin skinned"

SABRSox
01-23-2005, 07:47 PM
IMHO, the Sox W/L record will be dramatically affected by the health of Thomas and Hernandez (in addition to other, smaller question marks). Since these factors are impossible for even a card-carrying SABR member with a PhD in Math to predict, we'll have to just wait and see.

Actually, a guy by the name of Sig Mejdal has come up with a system that attempts to predict the probability of injuries based upon age, position, height, weight, body mass index, past injuries, career experience, and what type of player they are (for example, do they dive into walls to catch flyballs like Rowand, or play it on a hop like Bonds.)

Now, the system does seem flawed, since it predicts that Ken Griffey's chances of injury in 2005 are 36%, but I'd argue (since I've had him mulitple times on my fantasy baseball team) that the chances are more like 90-100%. Anyway, Frank Thomas' chances of injury are 30% for next season, that's the 9th highest probability of all players. Hernandez, though, doesn't make the pitchers list.

I'd agree with you that the success for the Sox does weigh heavily on the health of Frank Thomas, but there are PhD's in Math out there who are trying to predict these things, though I doubt they work for the White Sox. Fortunately the White Sox do have one of the best training staffs in baseball working for them...