PDA

View Full Version : Winning the "Right" way.


Soxforlife
01-20-2005, 08:18 PM
As a person who is on WSI a lot I have noticed a few trends in the threads
1. A loss of "Power" this off season
2. JR is too cheap

As I got thinking about these I realized something about myself and how I feel about the game.
1. I don't think that the loss of "Power" is a problem. I like the way Kenny built the team and it is the way I would build a team too. For me the only way to win consistently is with speed, people on base, defense, and pitching. Defense and in baseball's case pitching will ALWAYS win out over great hitting. There are very few Barry's out there and there definitely aren't any teams with nine of them. Not even the Yanks. So I think that this team will win more, maybe not this year, but with this formula they will win more because it is the "Right" way.
2. Going along with this "Right" way idea I understand that JR is cheap, and I totally agree that I would love to see him sell the team BUT not to some one like Steinbriener. I like that fact that we can't spend 200 million a year. It would give me more satisfaction to win with what we have than to buy an "ALL-STAR" team. I think that baseball needs a salary cap and I would rather not win every year because we sometimes need to retool that BUY my championships. That way it feels some much better when we win...and we will win.

Just some thoughts of mine let me know your responses.

Palehose13
01-20-2005, 08:23 PM
I agree with you on almost everything. I personally don't think that JR is cheap. I think he is a responsible business man. There are a lot of teams out there with less payroll than the White Sox.

samram
01-20-2005, 08:35 PM
I'm not a JR hater, but I'm not going to pretend that I would not enjoy the Sox being a favorite for the WS every year just because the payroll is huge. I do like the direction KW has taken the team this offseason though.

RedHeadPaleHoser
01-20-2005, 09:14 PM
I think KW has spun moss into gold with this lineup. Power's gotten us nowhere except 2nd place for the last few years. Maybe, a defense/speed/pitching team wins the Central and puts us in a good spot going forward, post season and next season.

Let us not forget - KW is the GM's GM during the season in the early deals and trades. Who's to say if the Sox aren't takeing care of business on the field, he gets a lumber hitter before Frank comes back? It could happen....

Lip Man 1
01-21-2005, 02:01 PM
Sox For Life:

I guess my only comment on your post would be in regards to the one about 'I'd rather win with what we have then a team of All Stars.'

That's the problem...the Sox aren't and haven't been winning with what they have due to serious on field holes and issues.

The Yanks have made the post season ten consecutive years.

I wouldn't have a problem if the Sox could make the playoffs in back to back seasons which they have never done in the history of the franchise.

I have no problem with the Sox winning a championship with a gang of mercinaries.

Lip

Dadawg_77
01-21-2005, 02:26 PM
As a person who is on WSI a lot I have noticed a few trends in the threads
1. A loss of "Power" this off season
2. JR is too cheap

As I got thinking about these I realized something about myself and how I feel about the game.
1. I don't think that the loss of "Power" is a problem. I like the way Kenny built the team and it is the way I would build a team too. For me the only way to win consistently is with speed, people on base, defense, and pitching. Defense and in baseball's case pitching will ALWAYS win out over great hitting. There are very few Barry's out there and there definitely aren't any teams with nine of them. Not even the Yanks. So I think that this team will win more, maybe not this year, but with this formula they will win more because it is the "Right" way.
2. Going along with this "Right" way idea I understand that JR is cheap, and I totally agree that I would love to see him sell the team BUT not to some one like Steinbriener. I like that fact that we can't spend 200 million a year. It would give me more satisfaction to win with what we have than to buy an "ALL-STAR" team. I think that baseball needs a salary cap and I would rather not win every year because we sometimes need to retool that BUY my championships. That way it feels some much better when we win...and we will win.

Just some thoughts of mine let me know your responses.

2001 Angels, they won by hitting the crap out of the ball and average pitching. You need everything to win in Baseball. Pitching and defense without hitting will win you nothing. You need Pitching and Hitting to win.

There isn't one right way to build team as we have seen success from teams built in all sort of ways. Getting people on base and pitching well are the two consistent in all the methods.

Ol' No. 2
01-21-2005, 02:35 PM
2001 Angels, they won by hitting the crap out of the ball and average pitching. You need everything to win in Baseball. Pitching and defense without hitting will win you nothing. You need Pitching and Hitting to win.

There isn't one right way to build team as we have seen success from teams built in all sort of ways. Getting people on base and pitching well are the two consistent in all the methods.You've got your years mixed up. The Angels won the WS in 2002, when they were 2nd in the AL in pitching (hardly average). It's a rarity for a team to make it to the WS that's not at least in the top 3 in their league in pitching. But there are lots of WS teams down around 5th or 6th or even lower in their league in hitting.

AZChiSoxFan
01-21-2005, 02:59 PM
You've got your years mixed up. The Angels won the WS in 2002, when they were 2nd in the AL in pitching (hardly average). It's a rarity for a team to make it to the WS that's not at least in the top 3 in their league in pitching. But there are lots of WS teams down around 5th or 6th or even lower in their league in hitting.

Great Point. Minn won the central last year with a team that was 10th out of 14 teams in the AL in hitting. The key is that they were 1st in the AL in pitching.

SOXintheBURGH
01-21-2005, 03:07 PM
2001 Angels, they won by hitting the crap out of the ball and average pitching. You need everything to win in Baseball. Pitching and defense without hitting will win you nothing. You need Pitching and Hitting to win.

There isn't one right way to build team as we have seen success from teams built in all sort of ways. Getting people on base and pitching well are the two consistent in all the methods.

Case in point, the "Hitless Wonders" White Sox teams in the late 60s.. winning games 2-0, 1-0, 2-1 all year with dominant pitching and defense... then nothing happened.

mweflen
01-21-2005, 03:18 PM
I think that baseball needs a salary cap and I would rather not win every year because we sometimes need to retool that BUY my championships. That way it feels some much better when we win...and we will win.

I agree with your main points: the direction the team has taken is positive (if only for the better pitching, the offense is still troubling and the defense is not particularly great.) ; spending your way to championships is not admirable and is overall damaging to the fabric of the game as a whole.

However, what justifies your confidence in our winning a world series championship any time soon? This is, at this current point and with the amount of information we currently have, an indefensible pipe dream.

Now, Scotty Pods could turn out to be a Juan Pierre-type leadoff man, Aaron could continue to build on his offense and become a true OF force, Jermaine Dye could regain his earlier form, Duque could pitch an entire season and win 20 games, Contreras could decide that throwing his fastball is a good idea again, Crede and Harris could pull it together and figure out how to hit for average, Thomas could return to 2003 form and lead the team as a big power presence in the lineup....

This is a lot of ifs - ifs which could just as easily go the negative way for us. A team with this many ifs can no way no how be anyone's favorite, or even have a marginal shot at competing for the WS.

Building a ball club is like making 25 bets a season. Which of those 25 bets will pay off? Which are long shots? How many long shots are you basing your whole betting portfolio on?

Teams which make safer bets, which cost more money, are what they call "perennial contenders." These are teams like New York, Boston, Anaheim (recently), St. Louis, Atlanta, L.A., San Francisco.

Teams that make higher stakes bets, like the White Sox, Cubs, Mets, Florida, Baltimore and the like, just as often lose enough of those bets to doom a season as win enough to compete. They'll make the playoffs one year, and lose 90 games the next - or be consistently mediocre, like the White Sox.

We are definitely a member of the 'second' tier of baseball teams in this respect, and it is solely owing to our budget and inability to make safer bets on talent.

Do I want to see a more even keel financial model for baseball? Absolutely. People who watch the NBA or NFL have at least a reasonable chance of seeing championship teams in their locales over a relatively short time period (less than a decade, let's say). MLB fans in places like Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, and any other number of cities, do not, and that stinks.

But it doesn't change the fact that, currently, money and gobs of it is what builds teams which are safer bets. Our ownership either doesn't have it or is not willing to spend it - therefore we are left with high hopes and no results every year. Sooner or later, the long shot will pay off. 1959, 1983, 1994, 2000.... not very consistent, or satisfying. But what are we going to do - move to NY and become baseball snobs?

gosox41
01-21-2005, 03:18 PM
Sox For Life:


I wouldn't have a problem if the Sox could make the playoffs in back to back seasons which they have never done in the history of the franchise.



Lip

Yeah you would. And you know it. If they 'just made the playoffs in back to back seasons' you'd still be ripping the organization.


Bob

Mickster
01-21-2005, 03:20 PM
Yeah you would. And you know it. If they 'just made the playoffs in back to back seasons' you'd still be ripping the organization.


Bob

Truer words have never been spoken.

Iwritecode
01-21-2005, 03:30 PM
People who watch the NBA or NFL have at least a reasonable chance of seeing championship teams in their locales over a relatively short time period (less than a decade, let's say).

Then the Bears are way behind and the Bulls better start doing something...

gosox41
01-21-2005, 03:35 PM
Truer words have never been spoken.

I wonder what one of the biggest JR haters on a site that advertises itself as 'Totally Biased' will say in 76 pages about the man.


:D:

Seriously I look forward to reading it as it should be interesting.



Bob

mweflen
01-21-2005, 03:39 PM
Then the Bears are way behind and the Bulls better start doing something...

The Bears have made the playoffs recently and won it all within the last 20 years, while the Bulls are nearing .500 after rebuilding from a 6 championship run. Also, the key words are "reasonable chance."

Is it not fair to say that the Bears and Bulls have had consisteltly better chances at building championship teams than the Sox have over the past, oh, 20 years? If so, why?

OurBitchinMinny
01-21-2005, 03:45 PM
I think the payroll is ok. Id like them to be on the same level as the cubs, but I guess I understand that the sox dont draw like the cubs so they dont make as much money.
I dont think there is a question that we lost power this year. We have. But it we werent doing much with power before. Yes the staff is better and on the surface the bullpen is better (we need to see how marte rebounds, if shingo can duplicate the success he had most of last year). All in all I have to admit I was more optimistic going into last year. We should be in the running this year but im not making any bets with my twinkie fan friends like I have the past 3 or 4

SoxWillWin
01-21-2005, 03:57 PM
I agree with your main points: the direction the team has taken is positive (if only for the better pitching, the offense is still troubling and the defense is not particularly great.) ; spending your way to championships is not admirable and is overall damaging to the fabric of the game as a whole.

However, what justifies your confidence in our winning a world series championship any time soon? This is, at this current point and with the amount of information we currently have, an indefensible pipe dream.

Now, Scotty Pods could turn out to be a Juan Pierre-type leadoff man, Aaron could continue to build on his offense and become a true OF force, Jermaine Dye could regain his earlier form, Duque could pitch an entire season and win 20 games, Contreras could decide that throwing his fastball is a good idea again, Crede and Harris could pull it together and figure out how to hit for average, Thomas could return to 2003 form and lead the team as a big power presence in the lineup....

This is a lot of ifs - ifs which could just as easily go the negative way for us. A team with this many ifs can no way no how be anyone's favorite, or even have a marginal shot at competing for the WS.



Now I know I'm new here but I have to say that this really chaps my hide. Since you seem to have ESP and very little faith in a team you "CLAIM" to be a fan of what don't you just say let's wait and see what happens. I have been a sox fan since I can remember and in all the years of subpar performance and losing I still remain optimistic come april that the sox will figure out a way to win. That is the advantage the Flubs have over the sox....no matter how bad it looks thier fans go out and support thier team for WHATEVER reason.......Sox fans make up excuses....I'm not going to the game cause I don't like JR......I don't like that ballpark....blah blah blah wine wine wine.......the sox could take a llama put it in a uniform and throw it out on the field and I'd still SUPPORT my favorite team.......I have a good feeling about this year, because I feel it. Not because some stat sheet says I should or shouldn't be.

SOX WILL WIN

Iwritecode
01-21-2005, 04:10 PM
The Bears have made the playoffs recently and won it all within the last 20 years, while the Bulls are nearing .500 after rebuilding from a 6 championship run. Also, the key words are "reasonable chance."

Is it not fair to say that the Bears and Bulls have had consisteltly better chances at building championship teams than the Sox have over the past, oh, 20 years? If so, why?

The Bulls haven't done anything (literally) since MJ left. For a long time they weren't even competitive much less contenders. They are getting better but still have a long way to go. IIRC, they didn't do much before MJ came either...

The Bears I don't pay much attention to but haven't they had only one playoff appearence since 1985? From what I understand, they were damn lucky to get that one.

IMHO, the Sox were unlucky in 1993 when BlackJack started tipping his pitches. That was probably their best chance to win it all in the past 20 years. In 2000 they basically coasted through the second half of the season and the injuries finally caught up with them in the playoffs. In 2003 and 2004 they had teams at the beginning of the season that could have made some noise in the playoffs had they gotten there. We all know what happened though...

I understand the gist of your post in that you usually see a different Championship team each year in the NFL and the NBA and you typically see the same 8-10 teams in the MLB playoffs every year. I agree that alot of that has to do with money.

But that still doesn't explain why we haven't seen a Super Bowl trophy in Chicago for almost 20 years and have been the laughing stock of the NBA for the past 6...

mweflen
01-21-2005, 04:12 PM
Now I know I'm new here but I have to say that this really chaps my hide. Since you seem to have ESP and very little faith in a team you "CLAIM" to be a fan of what don't you just say let's wait and see what happens. I have been a sox fan since I can remember and in all the years of subpar performance and losing I still remain optimistic come april that the sox will figure out a way to win. That is the advantage the Flubs have over the sox....no matter how bad it looks thier fans go out and support thier team for WHATEVER reason.......Sox fans make up excuses....I'm not going to the game cause I don't like JR......I don't like that ballpark....blah blah blah wine wine wine.......the sox could take a llama put it in a uniform and throw it out on the field and I'd still SUPPORT my favorite team.......I have a good feeling about this year, because I feel it. Not because some stat sheet says I should or shouldn't be.

SOX WILL WIN

Woah there, tiger.

I have gone to 30 games or more since 2000, and twenty or so for several seasons before this. I currently have nine sets of tickets for this season (can you guess which nine?) and will be splitting a 27-game plan with my dad again this season, so I'm looking at another year of 30 or more. So don't go accusing me of being a lukewarm or unsupportive fan simply because I don't have rose colored blinders on which make me spout out idiotic predictions of success based on little to no hard information. How many games did you go to last year? The year before? Speaking of safe bets, I'll bet you I've gone to more.

To me, the defining aspect of Sox fandom is a recognition of reality, in opposition to the idiocy displayed on the North side.A Cubs fan will glaze over like a Stepford Zombie and say "Wooooo!!! Cubbies are going to do it all this year!!!! Sammy/Dusty/Kerry/Prior/(insert savior here) is going to get us all the way!!! Wooo!!!!" (followed by beer guzzling sounds and cellphone rings)

A true Sox fan will give you an honest appraisal of both the team's past success and their prospect for future success.

Quite frankly, the prospect is this: We make the playoffs once every ten years or so and duck out early because of a lack of pitching and/or consistent offensive output (or both). We have a middling budget which doesn't allow the persual of big name, higher-stat talent. Our chances in any given year are dependent on a lot of question marks or unproven talent, which generally leads to disappointing seasons.

Dispute it. I'd love to see this argument.

SoxWillWin
01-21-2005, 04:20 PM
Well 30 games since 2000 is nice, what does that prove. you are basically saying that we should all live in the past of the sox and say "well we made the playoffs in 2000 and since they only make it every ten years I'll wait till 2010". Hell if you want to be that pessimistic about things we'll all probably die in a nuclear holocaust before 2010. I DON'T CARE about hard facts in baseball......I believe it's part of the appeal......you could have a player who's been crap all season hit the winning home run in the world series....Would hard facts have predicted that? I think not. So stick with your stat sheets and your pessimism. I'll believe in MY team....without making personal insults......

Ol' No. 2
01-21-2005, 04:23 PM
Woah there, tiger.

I have gone to 30 games or more since 2000, and twenty or so for several seasons before this. So don't go accusing me of being a lukewarm or unupportive fan simply because I don't have rose colored blinders on which make me spout out idiotic predictions of success based on little to no hard information. How many games did you go to last year? The year before? Speaking of safe bets, I'll bet you I've gone to more.

To me, the defining aspect of Sox fandom is a recognition of reality, in opposition to the idiocy displayed on the North side.A Cubs fan will glaze over like a Stepford Zombie and say "Wooooo!!! Cubbies are going to do it all this year!!!! Sammy/Dusty/Kerry/Prior/(insert savior here) is going to get us all the way!!! Wooo!!!!" (followed by beer guzzling sounds and cellphone rings)

A true Sox fan will give you an honest appraisal of both the team's past success and their prospect for future success.

Quite frankly, the prospect is this: We make the playoffs once every ten years or so and duck out early because of a lack of pitching. We have a middling buget which doesn't allow the persual of big name, higher-stat talent. Our chances in any given year are dependent on a lot of question marks or unproven talent, which generally leads to disappointing seasons.

Dispute it. I'd love to see this argument.If only teams with no question marks can win it, then I guess there won't be a WS this year, because EVERY team has question marks. The Yankees spent big money on Pavano and Wright. Do you think THEY'RE not question marks? There's a difference between recognizing where the question marks are and assuming they will all go against you. But the prevailing attitude seems to be that anyone who had a good year will decline and anyone who had a poor year will have another one.

mweflen
01-21-2005, 04:23 PM
Well 30 games since 2000 is nice, what does that prove. you are basically saying that we should all live in the past of the sox and say "well we made the playoffs in 2000 and since they only make it every ten years I'll wait till 2010". Hell if you want to be that pessimistic about things we'll all probably die in a nuclear holocaust before 2010. I DON'T CARE about hard facts in baseball......I believe it's part of the appeal......you could have a player who's been crap all season hit the winning home run in the world series....Would hard facts have predicted that? I think not. So stick with your stat sheets and your pessimism. I'll believe in MY team....without making personal insults......

I think you're confusing a recognition of reality with a lack of passion. I don't lack passion for the Sox. I love them. In addition to all the games I've gone to, I have hats, shirts, a neon sign, and passionately defend my team to Flubbie fans all the time.

I just don't delude myself about our team's chances. I like the direction we're going in (as I said in my first post on this thread) and I have hopes of a playoff berth. I just think it's unrealistic to say we "will win" the world series soon. There has been no proof or strong indication towards this at all. You'd be dreaming to think there was.

mweflen
01-21-2005, 04:25 PM
If only teams with no question marks can win it, then I guess there won't be a WS this year, because EVERY team has question marks. The Yankees spent big money on Pavano and Wright. Do you think THEY'RE not question marks? There's a difference between recognizing where the question marks are and assuming they will all go against you. But the prevailing attitude seems to be that anyone who had a good year will decline and anyone who had a poor year will have another one.

ON2 - I'm saying that the more/bigger question marks you have, the less likely you are to reach or succeed at a high level in the MLB. I don't think this is arguable.

Since the White Sox consistently have more/bigger question marks than the Yankees for example, they will tend to not make the playoffs as much as the Yankees do.

Not a very complex argument.

Iwritecode
01-21-2005, 04:25 PM
I just think it's unrealistic to say we "will win" the world series soon. There has been no proof or strong indication towards this at all. You'd be dreaming to think there was.

I remember saying the same thing about the Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins and Red Sox...

Dadawg_77
01-21-2005, 04:27 PM
You've got your years mixed up. The Angels won the WS in 2002, when they were 2nd in the AL in pitching (hardly average). It's a rarity for a team to make it to the WS that's not at least in the top 3 in their league in pitching. But there are lots of WS teams down around 5th or 6th or even lower in their league in hitting.

Their were an average staff that got great defence behind it and breaks which made it look a lot better then it was. Their DIPS number ranks the staff in the middle of the pack. The OF defense made the team's pitching look great by getting to many balls which an above average OF would allow to drop. They had a great Bullpen boost in the postseason by the call up of KRod. You need to be good in everything to win, not in just 2 out of three.

mweflen
01-21-2005, 04:30 PM
I remember saying the same thing about the Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins and Red Sox...

Okay, the Red Sox present an interesting example. If someone had said, before the 2004 season, that the Red Sox had a good chance of winning the WS soon, they'd be justified. They picked up another legitimate ace in Curt Schilling, to add to their already impressive pitching staff. They had two superstar offensive presences in their lineup, and no glaring holes in terms of solid players to fill out the rest of the order.

If someone were to say the White Sox had a "good chance" of winning the WS this year, they'd be on a lot shakier ground. We still have 2-5 holes in the lineup (based on 2004 performances and injury potential - Crede, Harris, Podsednik, Everett/Thomas, Dye), 2 big question marks in the rotation (see: Cuban connection), and some lingering questions in the pen (Politte, Marte, Takatsu).

Do the Sox have a chance? Yes. Do they have a good chance? No.

Do I want the Sox to succeed? Yes. Will I be ecstatic if they succeed? Yes. Will I be shocked if they don't? No.

SoxWillWin
01-21-2005, 04:32 PM
Okay let me take this out of baseball for a second......if my wife had a miscarriage with 2 pregnancies and she gets pregnant a third time would I just say "ahhh no use in buying a crib or preparing a room cause she's gonna lose it anyway"....NO. It's not about Passion or stats it's about FAITH. I have faith in my team. Do I know the reality Yes, but I'm not one to go naysaying and bringing everyone else who believes the same as me down. Hell during the american revolution did we have a chance against the training and numbers of the english.....no but we had faith and we won.

Dadawg_77
01-21-2005, 04:34 PM
ON2 - I'm saying that the more/bigger question marks you have, the less likely you are to reach or succeed at a high level in the MLB. I don't think this is arguable.

Since the White Sox consistently have more/bigger question marks than the Yankees for example, they will tend to not make the playoffs as much as the Yankees do.

Not a very complex argument.

Say one team have two question mark which each have a 50% of happening. Another team have 4 question marks which also have 50% of happening. Given then answer for all the question marks need to be yes for you team to win, the first team has a 25% chance of winning while the second team has a 6.25% chance of winning.

mweflen
01-21-2005, 04:36 PM
Say one team have two question mark which each have a 50% of happening. Another team have 4 question marks which also have 50% of happening. Given then answer for all the question marks need to be yes for you team to win, the first team has a 25% chance of winning while the second team has a 6.25% chance of winning.

A very good illustration of my point. Are you a math teacher? :smile:

Dadawg_77
01-21-2005, 04:37 PM
Okay let me take this out of baseball for a second......if my wife had a miscarriage with 2 pregnancies and she gets pregnant a third time would I just say "ahhh no use in buying a crib or preparing a room cause she's gonna lose it anyway"....NO. It's not about Passion or stats it's about FAITH. I have faith in my team. Do I know the reality Yes, but I'm not one to go naysaying and bringing everyone else who believes the same as me down. Hell during the american revolution did we have a chance against the training and numbers of the english.....no but we had faith and we won.

Well there is that whole thing of getting the French to help and changing battlefield tactics to ones better suited to the American Army. So instead of blind faith, you should believe it can happen but truthfully look at the situtation and create solutions to strengthen the weaknesses.

Dadawg_77
01-21-2005, 04:38 PM
A very good illustration of my point. Are you a math teacher? :smile:

No, Finance guy.

mweflen
01-21-2005, 04:44 PM
No, Finance guy.

Actually, finance guy, a more complex algorithm is needed to accurately represent a ballclub. The answers to all question marks need not be Yes, let's say that 75% of the question marks have to turn out in the Yes column (this better accounts for a 25 man roster which grants the ability to rest/platoon players).

So, given some teams, what are their chances of success? Let's say the White Sox have 8 question marks on their 25 man roster, while the Yankees have 4. What are the chances of 6 of 8 Sox questions being answered yes and 3 of 4 Yankees questions being answered yes? After this point, it starts to resemble high school pre-calc too much for me to want to do the math :smile:

If you wanted to get even more complex, you could subdivide the questions into pitching questions and offense questions. Perhaps 75% of the pitching questions neet to be answered yes, while only 50% of the offense questions need to be answered yes.

Iwritecode
01-21-2005, 05:16 PM
Say one team have two question mark which each have a 50% of happening. Another team have 4 question marks which also have 50% of happening. Given then answer for all the question marks need to be yes for you team to win, the first team has a 25% chance of winning while the second team has a 6.25% chance of winning.

The problem last year wasn't so much the question mark players as it was the players we counted on at the beginning of the season. Who really would have thought that Mags and Thomas would miss half the season?

Ol' No. 2
01-21-2005, 05:19 PM
ON2 - I'm saying that the more/bigger question marks you have, the less likely you are to reach or succeed at a high level in the MLB. I don't think this is arguable.

Since the White Sox consistently have more/bigger question marks than the Yankees for example, they will tend to not make the playoffs as much as the Yankees do.

Not a very complex argument.But I think you tend to be overly pessimistic when it comes to Sox players, giving them much lower probabilities of success than if the same player was on another team. Familiarity breeds contempt. If we had the Yankees' players, you'd be moaning about Bernie Williams' knees, Jaret Wright's shoulder, Tino Martinez' age, Bubba Crosby as a backup, etc. I'd say there's a good chance the Sox could wind up with one of the best pitching staffs in the AL, and when you've got pitching, anything can happen.

SOXSINCE'70
01-21-2005, 05:19 PM
Case in point, the "Hitless Wonders" White Sox teams in the late 60s.. winning games 2-0, 1-0, 2-1 all year with dominant pitching and defense... then nothing happened.

The Sox team of 1967 choked at the end of the season.

Going into the last week of the season the Sox,Tigers and Twinkies
were each within a game and a half of first place
(the Blo-Sawx were in first).The White Sox went to KC to play the A's.
First game was a double header,I believe.
Joel Horlen pitched the first game,Gary Peters pitched the second,
IIRC. Sox were swept by the A's,dealing their pennant hopes another
crucial blow.The only reason I remember this (I was 5 in '67) was
my cousin who is now in his mid 50's.He still refers to the double
header sweep as "Black Wednesday".:(: :(:

PS- The A's moved to Oakland in 1968

Iwritecode
01-21-2005, 05:20 PM
Okay, the Red Sox present an interesting example. If someone had said, before the 2004 season, that the Red Sox had a good chance of winning the WS soon, they'd be justified. They picked up another legitimate ace in Curt Schilling, to add to their already impressive pitching staff. They had two superstar offensive presences in their lineup, and no glaring holes in terms of solid players to fill out the rest of the order.

If someone were to say the White Sox had a "good chance" of winning the WS this year, they'd be on a lot shakier ground. We still have 2-5 holes in the lineup (based on 2004 performances and injury potential - Crede, Harris, Podsednik, Everett/Thomas, Dye), 2 big question marks in the rotation (see: Cuban connection), and some lingering questions in the pen (Politte, Marte, Takatsu).

Do the Sox have a chance? Yes. Do they have a good chance? No.

Do I want the Sox to succeed? Yes. Will I be ecstatic if they succeed? Yes. Will I be shocked if they don't? No.

Then you have the polar opposite in the Marlins and the Angels. Would you have said at the begining of their respective seasons that they had a good chance?

Hell, you could even say the same thing about the Twins in 2001 when they came out of nowhere to win the division. Baseball has a long drawn-out season and just about anything can happen.

The Sox may not be the #1 favorites but they could be a lot worse...

Ask Palehose13 about her "hometown" team. :wink:

Dadawg_77
01-21-2005, 05:21 PM
The problem last year wasn't so much the question mark players as it was the players we counted on at the beginning of the season. Who really would have thought that Mags and Thomas would miss half the season?

Well if a player will stay healthy is a question mark. Nothing is known right now and all we have are probabilities of events occurring. Thats why they play the games.

Iwritecode
01-21-2005, 05:26 PM
Is it not fair to say that the Bears and Bulls have had consisteltly better chances at building championship teams than the Sox have over the past, oh, 20 years? If so, why?

A second answer to this question...


Of course the Bears and Bulls have had consistently better chances over the past 20 years... They've had higher draft picks. :tongue:



Now if they could only DO something with those picks...

mweflen
01-21-2005, 05:33 PM
But I think you tend to be overly pessimistic when it comes to Sox players, giving them much lower probabilities of success than if the same player was on another team. Familiarity breeds contempt. If we had the Yankees' players, you'd be moaning about Bernie Williams' knees, Jaret Wright's shoulder, Tino Martinez' age, Bubba Crosby as a backup, etc. I'd say there's a good chance the Sox could wind up with one of the best pitching staffs in the AL, and when you've got pitching, anything can happen.

I am open to the idea that I'm being overly pessimistic about our own players. Not admitting to it, but it's a possibility.

I think if our players perform to their realistic expectations, we will be competitive and make the playoffs but not quite good enough to win it all. What are their realistic expectations?

Well, here are what I think are realistic expectations, ZIPS be damned.

Podsednik .280/60 SB
Uribe .280/20/80
Rowand .290/20/90
Dye .270/30/100
Thomas .270/20/70 (in limited play)
Everett .280/20/60 (also in limited/platoon play)
Konerko .280/30/100
Pierzynski .285/15/80
Crede .250/25/80
Harris .270/2/40 / 30 SB

Garcia 16-10/4.00 ERA
Beuhrle 16-10/4.00 ERA
Hernandez 12-6/3.50 ERA (in limited play)
Contreras 14-12/5.00 ERA
Garland 12-12/5.00 ERA

Is this a team that's good enough to make the playoffs, realistically? Probably. Is it good enough to go deep? Maybe. Is it as likely to go deep as the Yankees or Red Sox? No.

Ol' No. 2
01-21-2005, 05:46 PM
I am open to the idea that I'm being overly pessimistic about our own players. Not admitting to it, but it's a possibility.

I think if our players perform to their realistic expectations, we will be competitive and make the playoffs but not quite good enough to win it all. What are their realistic expectations?

Well, here are what I think are realistic expectations, ZIPS be damned.

Podsednik .280/60 SB
Uribe .280/20/80
Rowand .290/20/90
Dye .270/30/100
Thomas .270/20/70 (in limited play)
Everett .280/20/60 (also in limited/platoon play)
Konerko .280/30/100
Pierzynski .285/15/80
Crede .250/25/80
Harris .270/2/40 / 30 SB

Garcia 16-10/4.00 ERA
Beuhrle 16-10/4.00 ERA
Hernandez 12-6/3.50 ERA (in limited play)
Contreras 14-12/5.00 ERA
Garland 12-12/5.00 ERA

Is this a team that's good enough to make the playoffs, realistically? Probably. Is it good enough to go deep? Maybe. Is it as likely to go deep as the Yankees or Red Sox? No.As far as the hitters go, my estimates would be pretty close to those. Maybe 10 pts higher for a few players, but that's certainly within the margin of the guesstimate.

Where I would differ is in the pitching. Those ERA numbers are almost all worse than their 2004 numbers, and I can't see any reason to project they'd all do worse. Plus, I think their win totals will be better, mainly on the strength of a much-improved bullpen. Your numbers add up to 70 wins for the starters, which is pretty much the minumum a team needs to win a division. I'd project them at least 5 more than that.

But what I find encouraging about this team is that when (if) you get to the playoffs, the importance of pitching is magnified relative to what it is during the regular season. And I do think that the Sox pitching could be one of the top staffs in the AL. If the pitching is there, they've got as good a chance as anybody in the playoffs.

Lip Man 1
01-21-2005, 05:56 PM
Bob:

Since the Sox have never made the playoffs in back to back seasons and don't look like they will in the forseeable future due to the possibility of the Indians becomming a very good team, we'll never know will we?

Lip

mweflen
01-21-2005, 05:56 PM
As far as the hitters go, my estimates would be pretty close to those. Maybe 10 pts higher for a few players, but that's certainly within the margin of the guesstimate.

Where I would differ is in the pitching. Those ERA numbers are almost all worse than their 2004 numbers, and I can't see any reason to project they'd all do worse. Plus, I think their win totals will be better, mainly on the strength of a much-improved bullpen. Your numbers add up to 70 wins for the starters, which is pretty much the minumum a team needs to win a division. I'd project them at least 5 more than that.

But what I find encouraging about this team is that when (if) you get to the playoffs, the importance of pitching is magnified relative to what it is during the regular season. And I do think that the Sox pitching could be one of the top staffs in the AL. If the pitching is there, they've got as good a chance as anybody in the playoffs.

Here are the Sox pitchers ERA's for last season. (Garcia and Contreras show their ERA for us last year, which was a wash because Garcia's went up while Contreras' went down)

Buehrle 3.89
Contreras 5.30
Hernandez 3.30
Garcia 4.46
Garland 4.89

I don't see how that's very far off from a guesstimate of


Buehrle 4.00
Contreras 5.00
Hernandez 3.50
Garcia 4.00
Garland 5.00

In fact, the total staff ERA I am guessing for 2005 is a few percentage points lower than the actual 2004 staff ERA.

Flight #24
01-21-2005, 05:58 PM
As far as the hitters go, my estimates would be pretty close to those. Maybe 10 pts higher for a few players, but that's certainly within the margin of the guesstimate.

Where I would differ is in the pitching. Those ERA numbers are almost all worse than their 2004 numbers, and I can't see any reason to project they'd all do worse. Plus, I think their win totals will be better, mainly on the strength of a much-improved bullpen. Your numbers add up to 70 wins for the starters, which is pretty much the minumum a team needs to win a division. I'd project them at least 5 more than that.

But what I find encouraging about this team is that when (if) you get to the playoffs, the importance of pitching is magnified relative to what it is during the regular season. And I do think that the Sox pitching could be one of the top staffs in the AL. If the pitching is there, they've got as good a chance as anybody in the playoffs.

Don't forget that in general, if the Sox are contending in-season, KW generally is given the green light to make some in-season additions.

Flight #24
01-21-2005, 06:00 PM
In fact, the total staff ERA I am guessing for 2005 is a few percentage points lower than the actual 2004 staff ERA.

It should be significantly lower, because you're replacing the 5th starter debacle and it's ERA of maybe 7 with either El Duque's 3.5, or at least Contreras' of 5.

Add in the shift from Mike Jackson's infinite ERA (or rather his impact on Neal Cott's ERA) to Vizcaino/Hermanson, and the team ERA could go down as much as .5-.75. Heck - even the ZIPs data projects the Sox to improve from 4.9 to about 4.6 in team ERA!

Lip Man 1
01-21-2005, 06:02 PM
Sox Since 70:

In my research I discovered something very interesting and unusual that may have accounted for the dismal Wednesday.

The Sox played that Sunday afternoon in Cleveland on Eastern time, beating the Tribe, sweeping the series and headed to Kansas City. Monday was an off day. Tuesday's game was rained out. They played on Wednesday in the early evening for the start of Game #1.

That meant the Sox unbelieveably had THREE days off. From Sunday afternoon to Wednesday early evening without playing.

Considering it was rare for a club to have two days in a row off (or more to the point not playing) this was amazing. I think it screwed up their timing and their mental approach to those stretch drive games.

These guys were used to going to the park everyday, suddenly when the pressure was on the most, they don't play for around 72 hours! No batting practice, no running or stretching. Just sit on a plane or stay in their hotel rooms thinking.

Look at the box scores from those games, notice the number of errors, the times they left guys on base. Most unusual for that club.

I think this was a big factor.

Lip

mweflen
01-21-2005, 06:11 PM
It should be significantly lower, because you're replacing the 5th starter debacle and it's ERA of maybe 7 with either El Duque's 3.5, or at least Contreras' of 5.

Add in the shift from Mike Jackson's infinite ERA (or rather his impact on Neal Cott's ERA) to Vizcaino/Hermanson, and the team ERA could go down as much as .5-.75. Heck - even the ZIPs data projects the Sox to improve from 4.9 to about 4.6 in team ERA!

I agree that team ERA will likely dip in 2005. I'm talking though about starting staff ERA - the 5 guys we've got compared with those same 5 guys' ERA last year.

Ol' No. 2
01-21-2005, 06:16 PM
Here are the Sox pitchers ERA's for last season. (Garcia and Contreras show their ERA for us last year, which was a wash because Garcia's went up while Contreras' went down)

Buehrle 3.89
Contreras 5.30
Hernandez 3.30
Garcia 4.46
Garland 4.89

I don't see how that's very far off from a guesstimate of


Buehrle 4.00
Contreras 5.00
Hernandez 3.50
Garcia 4.00
Garland 5.00

In fact, the total staff ERA I am guessing for 2005 is a few percentage points lower than the actual 2004 staff ERA.Both Buehrle and Garland did better than what you've projected. 3.50 for Hernandez sounds about right. I expect Garcia to do better than a 4.0 ERA. He had a few poor outings last year when he had a sore elbow, and he did MUCH better than that for Seattle. Even though Seattle is a pitcher's park, the park factor isn't large enough to account for a 1.26 run difference. Contreras is the wild card. He turned in a 3.3 ERA in 2003, then cratered last year. What to expect in 2005? Who knows? Between his family being here, and all the other factors, there are just too many variables. If he blows up, it's going to be a problem. OTOH, you also have to consider the possibility of a mid-season move if it becomes necessary. Or maybe one of the young pitchers will finally get it together. There are a lot of factors that would mitigate a sub-par performance.

You also have to consider the effect of the improved bullpen. Ozzie will have the luxury of pulling a starter sooner if he starts to struggle, and that should help their numbers. And the improved bullpen will also bring down the overall staff ERA. Just getting rid of Mike Jackson should get them another 4-5 wins all by itself.

Of course, all these projections have a HUGE margin of error, so we're mostly kidding ourselves here. All sorts of things can happen. I'm looking forward to it. Cautiously optimistic?

mweflen
01-21-2005, 06:25 PM
Both Buehrle and Garland did better than what you've projected. 3.50 for Hernandez sounds about right. I expect Garcia to do better than a 4.0 ERA. He had a few poor outings last year when he had a sore elbow, and he did MUCH better than that for Seattle. Even though Seattle is a pitcher's park, the park factor isn't large enough to account for a 1.26 run difference. Contreras is the wild card. He turned in a 3.3 ERA in 2003, then cratered last year. What to expect in 2005? Who knows? Between his family being here, and all the other factors, there are just too many variables. If he blows up, it's going to be a problem. OTOH, you also have to consider the possibility of a mid-season move if it becomes necessary. Or maybe one of the young pitchers will finally get it together. There are a lot of factors that would mitigate a sub-par performance.

You also have to consider the effect of the improved bullpen. Ozzie will have the luxury of pulling a starter sooner if he starts to struggle, and that should help their numbers. And the improved bullpen will also bring down the overall staff ERA. Just getting rid of Mike Jackson should get them another 4-5 wins all by itself.

Of course, all these projections have a HUGE margin of error, so we're mostly kidding ourselves here. All sorts of things can happen. I'm looking forward to it. Cautiously optimistic?

Agreed. I'm cautiously optimistic, too, but cautious is the key word.

I try to be as cautious in predicting stats as possible - and that usually means underestimating a few guys by a bit. If they outperform my expectations, great. But I don't want to predict Willie will hit .300 or Contreras will pitch 3.00 ball. No rose colored glasses for me :smile:

Ol' No. 2
01-21-2005, 06:40 PM
Agreed. I'm cautiously optimistic, too, but cautious is the key word.

I try to be as cautious in predicting stats as possible - and that usually means underestimating a few guys by a bit. If they outperform my expectations, great. But I don't want to predict Willie will hit .300 or Contreras will pitch 3.00 ball. No rose colored glasses for me :smile:I try to be cautious, too, but I don't have a problem projecting young players will develop, so I'd probably project guys like Harris and Crede to do OK, though not necessarily great.

What makes me most optimistic is that, IMO, this pitching staff is, top to bottom, the best staff they've started the season with in quite a while. Every year it seems they started the season with a pitching staff full of holes. The closest thing to a hole this year is Contreras, and at worst, I think he'll win 12 games. And it's not too hard to imagine he could win 20. Plus the bullpen looks to be solid. Pitching wins.

Soxforlife
01-21-2005, 07:28 PM
Now I know I'm new here but I have to say that this really chaps my hide. Since you seem to have ESP and very little faith in a team you "CLAIM" to be a fan of what don't you just say let's wait and see what happens. I have been a sox fan since I can remember and in all the years of subpar performance and losing I still remain optimistic come april that the sox will figure out a way to win. That is the advantage the Flubs have over the sox....no matter how bad it looks thier fans go out and support thier team for WHATEVER reason.......Sox fans make up excuses....I'm not going to the game cause I don't like JR......I don't like that ballpark....blah blah blah wine wine wine.......the sox could take a llama put it in a uniform and throw it out on the field and I'd still SUPPORT my favorite team.......I have a good feeling about this year, because I feel it. Not because some stat sheet says I should or shouldn't be.

SOX WILL WIN

I agree completely. I started this thred because I had some ideas in my head and I wanted to get them out. I love that WSI allows us to discuss baseball and stats and everything else but I think that above all else we ARE sox fans and fans support thier team no matter what. Like the Bulls "Through Thick and Thin". Especialy in a totaly bias place we should always be behind our team and stats should come second. Leave the bashing to the media.

I am not saying make idiodic predictions because I live in reality too but optmisism does make the season more appealing in the offseason rather than complaining about it.

mweflen
01-21-2005, 07:30 PM
I did project Crede and Harris to develop. Both have better stats in my 05 predictions than 2004.

I don't think anyone with with even a shred of objectivity could claim that I was or am bashing the Sox.

SoxFan48
01-21-2005, 08:28 PM
1. I don't think that the loss of "Power" is a problem. I like the way Kenny built the team and it is the way I would build a team too. For me the only way to win consistently is with speed, people on base, defense, and pitching. Defense and in baseball's case pitching will ALWAYS win out over great hitting. There are very few Barry's out there and there definitely aren't any teams with nine of them. Not even the Yanks. So I think that this team will win more, maybe not this year, but with this formula they will win more because it is the "Right" way.


Colorado made the same decision three years. Check out how they did the past three years. Critics that the WS roster over the past three years was not capable of getting to the top are right. But is the solution to dump a productive part of your offense for those ever lovable grinders (Scotty Pod) who turned one productive year out of eleven into a career? Just because we are changing direction does not mean the direction is not down.

SpammySosa
01-21-2005, 09:05 PM
Bob:

Since the Sox have never made the playoffs in back to back seasons and don't look like they will in the forseeable future due to the possibility of the Indians becomming a very good team, we'll never know will we?

Lip

Since this thread is full of a lot of ifs.....IF the 1994 season wasn't canned due to the strike,I strongly believe we wouldn't be pondering this question. Oh what could have been!:whiner:

Soxforlife
01-21-2005, 09:38 PM
Since this thread is full of a lot of ifs.....IF the 1994 season wasn't canned due to the strike,I strongly believe we wouldn't be pondering this question. Oh what could have been!:whiner:
How true it is ... I have in my posetion two ticket to White Sox v. National League Champ World Series tics.....the saddness of it all.

kaufsox
01-22-2005, 12:14 AM
So stick with your stat sheets and your pessimism. I'll believe in MY team....without making personal insults......[/QUOTE]

uh, where are the personal insults? calling you tiger? If it's good enough for Spiderman, it's good enough for you...

Cubbiesuck13
01-22-2005, 04:41 AM
How true it is ... I have in my posetion two ticket to White Sox v. National League Champ World Series tics.....the saddness of it all.


I have a couple myself.

slavko
01-22-2005, 12:30 PM
The Sox team of 1967 choked at the end of the season.

Going into the last week of the season the Sox,Tigers and Twinkies
were each within a game and a half of first place
(the Blo-Sawx were in first).The White Sox went to KC to play the A's.
First game was a double header,I believe.
Joel Horlen pitched the first game,Gary Peters pitched the second,
IIRC. Sox were swept by the A's,dealing their pennant hopes another
crucial blow.The only reason I remember this (I was 5 in '67) was
my cousin who is now in his mid 50's.He still refers to the double
header sweep as "Black Wednesday".:(: :(:

PS- The A's moved to Oakland in 1968

And don't forget the Luke Appling factor. He was the interim manager of KC for those games.

Paulwny
01-22-2005, 01:08 PM
Don't forget that in general, if the Sox are contending in-season, KW generally is given the green light to make some in-season additions.

This does cause problems as the yanks have finally realized. We've all discussed this previously, making additions at the break involves trades and usually a team's highly touted prospects. JR should allow KW to add people before the start of the season, not waiting to see if the sox are contenders and where the attendance stands.

Lip Man 1
01-22-2005, 01:58 PM
Paulwny:

Very much agree with you. It's always a 'wait and see' attitude with the organization. 'We'll wait and see how we do in April / May,' 'we'll wait and see if the fans come out.'

BS.

In case the Sox haven't noticed the price of playing poker (i.e. acquiring needed talent goes sky high at the trade deadline.)

Lip

MRKARNO
01-22-2005, 02:06 PM
Say one team have two question mark which each have a 50% of happening. Another team have 4 question marks which also have 50% of happening. Given then answer for all the question marks need to be yes for you team to win, the first team has a 25% chance of winning while the second team has a 6.25% chance of winning.

But we all know that the outcomes have different distributions than that and some are a lot more likely than others. I know you understand that and it's just a matter of what you think those percentages really are. Also, not all things have to fall your way in order to win, just most of them.

gosox41
01-22-2005, 02:14 PM
Bob:

Since the Sox have never made the playoffs in back to back seasons and don't look like they will in the forseeable future due to the possibility of the Indians becomming a very good team, we'll never know will we?

Lip

Never say never Lip. PMA.


I'm only basing my opinion on past performance (ie previous posts.)



Bob

Ol' No. 2
01-24-2005, 10:01 AM
This does cause problems as the yanks have finally realized. We've all discussed this previously, making additions at the break involves trades and usually a team's highly touted prospects. JR should allow KW to add people before the start of the season, not waiting to see if the sox are contenders and where the attendance stands.There's one problem with this approach. Mid-season you try to plug holes that develop or replace players that get hurt. Can you tell me now which players are going to have sub-par years or which are going to get hurt? Look at the playoff teams from last year. ALL made mid-season trades.

Paulwny
01-24-2005, 07:36 PM
There's one problem with this approach. Mid-season you try to plug holes that develop or replace players that get hurt. Can you tell me now which players are going to have sub-par years or which are going to get hurt? Look at the playoff teams from last year. ALL made mid-season trades.

I'm not saying that the sox should never make a mid season deal. Sure most contenders try a plug a hole or replace an injured player but, these contenders usually don't start the season with obvious holes or huge question marks, the 5th starter has been a big issue for a number of years.

Ol' No. 2
01-24-2005, 09:21 PM
I'm not saying that the sox should never make a mid season deal. Sure most contenders try a plug a hole or replace an injured player but, these contenders usually don't start the season with obvious holes or huge question marks, the 5th starter has been a big issue for a number of years.Look around the league at the 5th starters. I'll bet Garland is in the top 3 or 4.

Paulwny
01-25-2005, 07:51 PM
Look around the league at the 5th starters. I'll bet Garland is in the top 3 or 4.

The 5th starters in previous yrs was a major problem that was never addressed until now.