PDA

View Full Version : Best Sox Team Ever?


SouthBendSox
04-19-2005, 10:43 PM
With the magical leetle-ball stylings of POdzilla and Co. and Ozzero's and KW's genius... is this the greatest Sox team of all-time?

Mickster
04-19-2005, 10:44 PM
Not even close.

FarWestChicago
04-19-2005, 10:45 PM
Whoa, put away the:

:bong:

ilsox7
04-19-2005, 10:46 PM
I just wanted to say that's awesome that you're this drunk on a Tuesday night. I wish I could go back to those days!

JoseCanseco6969
04-19-2005, 10:48 PM
I just wanted to say that's awesome that you're this drunk on a Monday night. I wish I could go back to those days!

Tuesday, but I also wish I was drunk instead of studying for freaking exams!
No way is this the best of all time, but it looks like a pretty good team in general.

SouthBendSox
04-19-2005, 10:48 PM
Thank God that team cancer Frank Thomas isn't around yet.

chisoxfanatic
04-19-2005, 10:49 PM
The greatest Sox team of all time...Try 1906, and we all know why. :)

SoxxoS
04-19-2005, 10:52 PM
Biggest

:hawk

"STRETCH"

Of all time.

Mickster
04-19-2005, 10:52 PM
Thank God that team cancer Frank Thomas isn't around yet.

:?: :?: :?:

Them is fightin' words.....

FarWestChicago
04-19-2005, 10:52 PM
Thank God that team cancer Frank Thomas isn't around yet.OK, time for a time out. :rolleyes:

chisoxfanatic
04-19-2005, 10:53 PM
Thank God that team cancer Frank Thomas isn't around yet.

That was meant to be put in teal, wasn't it?

MRKARNO
04-19-2005, 10:53 PM
It's the 1917 team and it's not even close. They're the only team in team history to win 100 games and they didn't win 'em ugly like the '83 team did. Of the two teams that have won the world series, this is clearly the better one.

Ron Karkovice
04-19-2005, 10:54 PM
tony phillips is the greatest past sox player ever...

JGarlandrules20
04-19-2005, 10:56 PM
With the magical leetle-ball stylings of POdzilla and Co. and Ozzero's and KW's genius... is this the greatest Sox team of all-time?
Because we can definitely tell after 14 games..? :?:

chisoxmike
04-19-2005, 10:56 PM
First of all, last time I checked its April 19, not October 19 and the Sox have won the world series.

How, how, how can you judge this team after 14 freakin' games? They haven't won jack yet. And with the way the last 4 years have gone, I refuse to get overly excited. But I do like what I see from this team, lets hope it lasts.

Unregistered
04-19-2005, 10:56 PM
OK, I really hope this worthless thread gets booted to the ****house.
I feel like I'm reading a Cubs board.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=2676

ilsox7
04-19-2005, 10:57 PM
Tuesday, but I also wish I was drunk instead of studying for freaking exams!
No way is this the best of all time, but it looks like a pretty good team in general.

Saw that right after I posted and changed it. One would think I hit the bottle tonight...

Jjav829
04-19-2005, 10:59 PM
With the magical leetle-ball stylings of POdzilla and Co. and Ozzero's and KW's genius... is this the greatest Sox team of all-time?

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

nordhagen
04-19-2005, 11:50 PM
I wish I still had the chance to drink like that, too.

I do hope it might be like the 1990 team no one expected to do anything and won 94 games by taking a lot of close, low-scoring games and being a pain in the rear to the big (now we know why), bad A's. That was a heck of a fun summer where I was at an age where I could drink a lot.

ChiWhiteSox1337
04-19-2005, 11:52 PM
Hey pal, it's still April 19th..not the 20th yet. :wink: I'm optimistic, but I agree with other fellow sox fans that we've learned in the past not to get overly excited in the month of April.

MIgrenade
04-19-2005, 11:53 PM
This thread = Bad

A. Cavatica
04-19-2005, 11:54 PM
It's probably not even the best Sox team of this century.

Gosox1917
04-19-2005, 11:59 PM
Wow. Way to be optimistic but geez, this is a bit too far. Also, did some of our members forget how to use teal? Frank is the man and the tony phillips comment came way out of left field for me, unless I'm missing something here.

MILTMAY5
04-20-2005, 12:07 AM
Too many one run games to be this crazy, they've only out scored their opponents by A TOTAL of 5 runs. Wayyyyy too early!

BRDSR
04-20-2005, 12:09 AM
It's probably not even the best Sox team of this century.

If we're going on wins and losses, you might be right. 95 wins is a lot. But that 95 win team in 2000 was an enigma. The talent assembled on that team did NOT equal 95 wins. I feel safe in saying that this is the best Sox team of this century, and I would stick to that assertion even if this team doesn't win 95 games.

DumpJerry
04-20-2005, 12:14 AM
It's the 1917 team and it's not even close. They're the only team in team history to win 100 games and they didn't win 'em ugly like the '83 team did. Of the two teams that have won the world series, this is clearly the better one.
Many baseball historians say this was one of the best teams in all of baseball ever. Some say that this team was so good, the Flubs were considering moving because they could not attract any fans to their games.

This team is looking good, but I would not even put them in the top ten Sox teams. Yet. Check back on Labor Day.

nordhagen
04-20-2005, 12:21 AM
Yeah, let's not get too jacked up with the upcoming trip of Detroit (they struggled against them even when they were horrible), Kansas City (easy, right, just like the Tigers of recent vintage) and then the nightmare that is the Oakland Mausoleum.

People keep asking if I'm excited. Intrigued and optimistic, yes, but I told someone to check back after 154 games and not 14. After all, we're bitter, jaded, pessimistic Sox fans, aren't we?

Shorty1983
04-20-2005, 12:27 AM
OK, I really hope this worthless thread gets booted to the ****house.
I feel like I'm reading a Cubs board.


I love your sig.

Until they win another world series, 1917 is the best sox team ever.

doublem23
04-20-2005, 12:34 AM
:hawk
I luuuuuuuuuuuuuv optimism.

It's a nice though. Recordwise, this has to be one of the best Sox teams ever through 14 games. :bandance:

MrRoboto83
04-20-2005, 04:39 AM
Hopefully this October I agree with you

RedPinStripes
04-20-2005, 05:37 AM
I take a few minutes to see what the smartest Sox fans on earth are talking about and i run into this ****.

ondafarm
04-20-2005, 06:36 AM
I don't think this is the best White Sox team of all time.

On the other hand, "the first place White Sox" does sound pretty dog gone good to hear. Even if a lousy ump did steal a run from us last night.

BigEdWalsh
04-20-2005, 08:11 AM
I take a few minutes to see what the smartest Sox fans on earth are talking about and i run into this ****.

I pulled up this thread thinking oh, a discussion on the greatest Sox teams of all-time. Cool.
So, in the spirit of stupidity.....YES!! Forget about 1906, 1917, 1959, 1977...etc. THIS team is the greatest ever!! :bandance: Yeah! Woo Hoo!!
Have another one, SouthBend! :gulp:


:dtroll:

duke of dorwood
04-20-2005, 09:00 AM
1917, 1919, 1983, 1993, 1977.

LongLiveFisk
04-20-2005, 09:05 AM
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

My sentiments exactly.

And I never thought I'd do this but......
:threadsucks

surfdudes
04-20-2005, 09:33 AM
1917. Please break out the kool- ade sometime in October........

Dick Allen
04-20-2005, 09:39 AM
Unfortunately, one of the best Sox teams of all time may have been 1994. But we'll never really know, will we? I liked the balance that team had.

Orta 4-6-3
04-20-2005, 10:10 AM
Unfortunately, one of the best Sox teams of all time may have been 1994. But we'll never really know, will we? I liked the balance that team had.

That was best Sox team I ever saw. But at least until they win another World Series, the 1917 White Sox were the best ever.

voodoochile
04-20-2005, 10:17 AM
Thank God that team cancer Frank Thomas isn't around yet.

Dumbest post of the century...

elrod
04-20-2005, 10:37 AM
Why do people insist on the 1977 White Sox as one of the best? They didn't even make the postseason. Hell, they didn't even finish in second place! They were exciting, sure, but not one of the best.

Check out baseball-reference.com and one thing stands out. The White Sox have finished 2nd place more than any other team in baseball going back to 1901 except the Red Sox. The Carmines finished 2nd 20 times and we finished 2nd 18 times.

tacosalbarojas
04-20-2005, 12:34 PM
Why do people insist on the 1977 White Sox as one of the best? They didn't even make the postseason. Hell, they didn't even finish in second place! They were exciting, sure, but not one of the best.

Check out baseball-reference.com and one thing stands out. The White Sox have finished 2nd place more than any other team in baseball going back to 1901 except the Red Sox. The Carmines finished 2nd 20 times and we finished 2nd 18 times.Thanks mostly to the 50s and 60s playing second fiddle to the Yanks and doing the same throughout the mid-to-late 90s and 00s to Cleveburg and Minny. We gots to change that this year.

HITMEN OF 77
04-20-2005, 01:00 PM
The 1972 team I think was the best ever. Good defense, good pitching and good hitting. Had Melton not went down to injury, they would have won the West.

batmanZoSo
04-20-2005, 01:04 PM
Why do people insist on the 1977 White Sox as one of the best? They didn't even make the postseason. Hell, they didn't even finish in second place! They were exciting, sure, but not one of the best.

Check out baseball-reference.com and one thing stands out. The White Sox have finished 2nd place more than any other team in baseball going back to 1901 except the Red Sox. The Carmines finished 2nd 20 times and we finished 2nd 18 times.

I think you're grossly underestimating the teams from the Jorge Fabregas era.

Malgar 12
04-20-2005, 01:49 PM
Why do people insist on the 1977 White Sox as one of the best? They didn't even make the postseason. Hell, they didn't even finish in second place! They were exciting, sure, but not one of the best.
.

I agree. Although I will admit that as a two year old at the time, my ability to appreciate a good team was weak. :D: That being said I think you have to put the 1990 team ahead of the 1977 one.

Brian26
04-20-2005, 02:09 PM
I wish I still had the chance to drink like that, too.

I do hope it might be like the 1990 team no one expected to do anything and won 94 games by taking a lot of close, low-scoring games and being a pain in the rear to the big (now we know why), bad A's. That was a heck of a fun summer where I was at an age where I could drink a lot.

This team reminds me a LOT of the 1990 team.

Knockoutinthepar
04-20-2005, 02:13 PM
And with the way the last 4 years have gone, I refuse to get overly excited. But I do like what I see from this team, lets hope it lasts.

Look at us: a bunch of bitter and broken-hearted fans, sitting at home like we've been stood up on prom night, we're damaged goods--every single last one of us.

It easy to see why we're so angry at people like the one that started this thread: they seem to have no difficulty forgetting the broken dreams of seasons past (even when it was just under a year ago when we were last this excited). As much as we resent people like this we should resist our impulse to smack them out of their delusions; let sleeping dogs lie.

chisoxmike
04-20-2005, 02:16 PM
Ok, the 1990 team was great and all, but they didn't win anything! No one expected the 2000 team to do anything and they at least won the divison, then roll over and died in the playoffs.

chisoxmike
04-20-2005, 02:18 PM
[QUOTE=Knockoutinthepar]Look at us: a bunch of bitter and broken-hearted fans, sitting at home like we've been stood up on prom night, we're damaged goods--every single last one of us. QUOTE]

Ha, I like what I see from the Sox, but I also dont want to give my hopes up, and I was ditched at prom too. :whiner: But I got over that, but still can't get over the 2003 meltdown.

elrod
04-20-2005, 02:30 PM
It seems every damn year we get at a team that's good enough to compete but not good enough to win. If we were the Cubs or Phillies then most of the years we'd have no chance. But the White Sox are always in contention, with the exception of, say, 1989 or 1970 or 1999. And even after those debacle seasons the Sox always surprise us by coming right back. Think of Chuck Tanner's debut in 1971, the 1990 surprise, and of course 2000.

mccombe_35
04-20-2005, 02:45 PM
The '93 & '94 teams aren't getting the attention they deserve in this thread! 2 games away from the World Series in '93 & the ? in '94........

But, 2003 was the most fun I've had AT the ball park............... not a happy ending though.....

This 2005 team could be special. They aren't hitting at all & have the best record in the AL. (thanks to 5 starters with ERA's under 3.70).

The offense will pick up when #35 gets back.

Nellie_Fox
04-20-2005, 04:47 PM
Take a look at the '64 team. You look at the starters, and say "how in the heck did that club ever win 98 games." Then you look at their pitching staff, and say "oh, yeah, that's how they did it."

nasox
04-20-2005, 04:55 PM
Dumbest post of the century...

Can you ban people for making idiotic statements? Or better yet, let him scream that at the next sox home game. :cool:

zach074
04-20-2005, 05:01 PM
With the magical leetle-ball stylings of POdzilla and Co. and Ozzero's and KW's genius... is this the greatest Sox team of all-time?

The season just started, but if they do win the World Series then I would consider them the best team i have ever seen.

MRKARNO
04-20-2005, 05:02 PM
Best White Sox teams ever (an unscientific list):

1. 1917
2. 1906
3. 1964 (Best White Sox team that didnt win anything)
4. 1983
5. 1920 (better in reality than their 1919 counterparts)

Ol' No. 2
04-20-2005, 05:04 PM
This thread started out really dumb, but it's not so bad if we forget about the premise and talk about the best Sox teams.

I would have to say the best I've seen is the 93-94 teams. Starting pitching, bullpen, defense, good balance of power and OBP. They had it all. They would have won it all in '93 if Toronto hadn't figured out that McDowell was tipping his pitches.:angry: Probably could have won in '94, too. Could have been the start of a nice run.

SouthSide4Life
04-20-2005, 05:18 PM
black sox, hands down

the 59ers are up there tho

MRKARNO
04-20-2005, 05:31 PM
black sox, hands down


Hands down?

Facts about the 1917 White Sox (with comparable stats for the 1919 team in parentheses):

-They were the only team in White Sox history to win 100 games with an 100-54 record (1919 won 88, but in only 140 games)
-They had the highest winning percentage of any team in White Sox history with .649 (.629 for Black Sox)
-They won the World Series (Did not. Lost to a better Cincinnatti team and evidence that they actually could have won it if they had tried is shaky at best)

PaleHoseGeorge
04-20-2005, 05:36 PM
This question is a bit like soliciting opinions about the strangest animal in the room and everybody ignoring the purple elephant seated on the sofa.
:o:

The Sox have sucked for most of their 105 year existence. We should all just deal with it.

The Go-Go era was an abject failure, the Sox trying to get by with no offense and finishing second (or third) to the Yankees over and over and over again... and yet we hold the '59 team in some perverted reverance because the Yankees finally sucked for once and let us sneak into the World Series. It was the first time for the Sox in 40 years and it's been 45 years since without another appearance.

Who are we crapping? Nobody but ourselves.

The Sox will never win another championship as long as we keep deluding ourselves that "pitching and defense" wins championships and singing hosannahs at the notion that too much power is a bad thing.

Pitching wins championships.
Pitching and the little things win championships.
Pitching and the 3-run homer win championships.

Stop spouting stupid cliches that aren't true. Pitching and defense does not win championships and the Chicago White Sox are the living proof of this fact. We haven't won jack since the deadball era. Coincidentally, that's when pitching and defense probably did win championships. Go figure...

The deadball era ain't coming back. We Sox Fans need to deal with that, too.

MRKARNO
04-20-2005, 05:47 PM
Stop spouting stupid cliches that aren't true. Pitching and defense does not win championships and the Chicago White Sox are the living proof of this fact.

It's not pitching and defense that wins championships. It's pitching and offense. In these days you have to be able to do both. If you can't, then you can win in one of the following two ways:

1. Have a ridiculously amazing offense and/or pitching staff that will be remembered for years afterwards
2. Get lucky

Let's look at the 98-2000 NY Yankees for instance:

In 1998, the team won 114 games. They had both an amazing offense and amazing pitching. There is no other way to win that many games and the World Series.

In 1999, the team had solid, but not special pitching, but the offense, again, was amazing.

In 2000, they got lucky. Their offense was awesome again, but their pitching staff nearly gave up as many runs as this awesome offense was able to score! It didn't matter though, they still won.

The Yankees won all three ways. The White Sox, unfortunately, do not have the financial resources of the Yankees, nor the farm system of a team like Atlanta. What does this mean? We can only win by being lucky (see 1990 Cincinnatti Reds, 2003 Florida Marlins and 1997 Florida Marlins for more examples of this).

voodoochile
04-20-2005, 06:06 PM
1983 simply because they were my favorite.

Nellie_Fox
04-20-2005, 11:16 PM
The Sox will never win another championship as long as we keep deluding ourselves that "pitching and defense" wins championships and singing hosannahs at the notion that too much power is a bad thing.I don't think that anyone said that too much power is a bad thing. What I believe is that power alone, with slow-footed players clogging the basepaths and standing around waiting for the three-run homer, with those same slow-footed players being defensive liabilities at too many positions, is a bad thing. Having ways to win games on the days when the three-run homer doesn't happen is a good thing.

TheBull19
04-20-2005, 11:45 PM
If we're going on wins and losses, you might be right. 95 wins is a lot. But that 95 win team in 2000 was an enigma. The talent assembled on that team did NOT equal 95 wins. I feel safe in saying that this is the best Sox team of this century, and I would stick to that assertion even if this team doesn't win 95 games.

Technically, the century didn't start until 2001 since there was no year 0, so it could very well be the best team of the century.

TheBull19
04-20-2005, 11:50 PM
It's not pitching and defense that wins championships. It's pitching and offense.

Yeah, pitching and defense is redudant if you ask me, considering 90% of defense(preventing the opposition from scoring) is pitching.

Nellie_Fox
04-20-2005, 11:54 PM
Yeah, pitching and defense is redudant if you ask me, considering 90% of defense(preventing the opposition from scoring) is pitching.No, pitching and defense are not redundant. Good pitching takes pressure off your defense, but range, glove and arm have nothing to do with pitching. When bat meets ball, defense takes over.

TheBull19
04-21-2005, 12:05 AM
1983 simply because they were my favorite.

I'd say they were the best, too, even though they didn't make the WS, but, hey, I consider the 2001 Mariners one of the best all time teams and they didn't make it either. The '83 team was the only Sox team that really had that combination of power, pitching and speed - Of course their one weakness -defense - might've been what kept them out of the WS - curse you, Dybzinski!!! The '93-94 team had superior defense and plenty of speed, but outside of Thomas and Ventura , didn't have a lot of power. The 2000 team had mediocre pitching, as far as WS hopefuls go anyway, and poor defense - of course the offense ended up being the problem in the playoffs. How does this team rank? I'm going to go on a limb and say definitely in the top 100 sox clubs of all time.

TheBull19
04-21-2005, 12:07 AM
No, pitching and defense are not redundant. Good pitching takes pressure off your defense, but range, glove and arm have nothing to do with pitching. When bat meets ball, defense takes over.

Defense is defined as A)the means or tactics used in the preventing of your opponent from scoring, B)the team or those players on the team attempting to stop the opponent from scoring, therefore pitching is part of defense.

Nellie_Fox
04-21-2005, 12:09 AM
Defense is defined as the means or tactics used in the preventing of your opponent from scoring, therefore pitching is part of defense."Part of" is not "same as" and is therefore not redundant.

TheBull19
04-21-2005, 12:15 AM
"Part of" is not "same as" and is therefore not redundant.

Okay, so saying 'trees have bark' and 'oak trees have bark' is not redudant, then, I guess.

MeanFish
04-21-2005, 12:16 AM
I'd say they were the best, too, even though they didn't make the WS, but, hey, I consider the 2001 Mariners one of the best all time teams and they didn't make it either. The '83 team was the only Sox team that really had that combination of power, pitching and speed - Of course their one weakness -defense - might've been what kept them out of the WS - curse you, Dybzinski!!! The '93-94 team had superior defense and plenty of speed, but outside of Thomas and Ventura , didn't have a lot of power. The 2000 team had mediocre pitching, as far as WS hopefuls go anyway, and poor defense - of course the offense ended up being the problem in the playoffs. How does this team rank? I'm going to go on a limb and say definitely in the top 100 sox clubs of all time.

Top hundred Sox clubs of all time? You sure about that? I mean, we'd have to beat like what, four past Sox teams to pull that one off? That's a tall order.

:redneck

Nellie_Fox
04-21-2005, 12:20 AM
Okay, so saying 'trees have bark' and 'oak trees have bark' is not redudant, then, I guess.That's not even close to the same thing (the word is redundant, by the way, not redudant. I thought it was a typo the first time you did it.)

Trees have bark. Oak trees are trees. Therefore oak trees have bark.

Let's try to parse this to support your argument. Pitching is defense. Second base is defense. Therefore, second base is pitching.

balke
04-21-2005, 12:24 AM
The Sox have sucked for most of their 105 year existence. We should all just deal with it.

The Go-Go era was an abject failure, the Sox trying to get by with no offense and finishing second (or third) to the Yankees over and over and over again... and yet we hold the '59 team in some perverted reverance because the Yankees finally sucked for once and let us sneak into the World Series. It was the first time for the Sox in 40 years and it's been 45 years since without another appearance.




Balance is what wins a championship. You need D, Pitching, Power, and speed. You need a whole team full of players, starting and on your bench that can help you win games.

8 Man-Ram's (Powerful w/ no Defense) aren't winning a championship. 8 Cabrera's (weak hitting Defenders) won't win a championship. 8 Ichiro's (Balanced speedy/golden-gloved/mild powered players) might have a shot.

The Belle/Thomas combo was only effective when someone was on base in front of them. The Maggs/Frank/Kong combo didn't do it. We had the sickest lineup for power EVER last season, and we didn't do it. (We might have if healthy or with more depth or pitching, but still... it didn't work)

This is one of the most well-balanced teams I can remember. I'll take my chances with 5 stud pitchers, a great infield, a solid outfield, A deep roster, 4-5 runs a game, and spread out Hr's that will be perhaps 40 less than last season at the most.

So far the people we've waited on the past few years have shown up (Garland, Marte, Crede) and the players many gave up on (Contreras, El Duque, A.J, Everett) have shown up as well. I love Iguchi-Uribe-Crede-Konerko in the infield. I honestly think a lot of our pitching success might have to do with A.J. calling games behind the plate. I like the range in the outfield for the most part.

The speed is back. The D is better. The Power mostly stayed. The pitching came out of nowhere.

If we play like this til the All-Star break, I'll be very very excited, and not very surprised. This team has great balance and plays well in tough situations. I miss the fireworks (Even though we've had our share already, and Frank comes back in May/June), but if this team keeps pitching like this.. they will be the best in a long long time.

TheBull19
04-21-2005, 01:09 AM
Trees have bark. Oak trees are trees. Therefore oak trees have bark.

Let's try to parse this to support your argument. Pitching is defense. Second base is defense. Therefore, second base is pitching.

Q. Oaks are to trees as pitching is to...

TheBull19
04-21-2005, 01:10 AM
Q. Oaks are to trees as pitching is to...

A. Defense
B. 2nd Basemen
C. I wish they removed these questions from the SAT when I was in school.

batmanZoSo
04-21-2005, 04:44 AM
Can you ban people for making idiotic statements? Or better yet, let him scream that at the next sox home game. :cool:

He'll probably get high fived. :rolleyes:

Realist
04-21-2005, 06:51 AM
This current team don't suck. I'm sure that if someone were to start a thread with this same title in late October when all our faces hurt from smiling, it'd be a pretty fun thread.

Stranger things have happened. Let's have fun and see what pans out.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-21-2005, 08:00 AM
"Part of" is not "same as" and is therefore not redundant.

Which perfectly explains why that stupid cliche "pitching and defense wins championships" is a load of hooey. As Nellie notes, "Pitching and defense aren't the same!"

If we take Nellie's premise that pitching and defense aren't the same, and we also accept the premise that two priorities in baseball win championships, the first of these being pitching, then clearly there are far more important things to winning championships than the glovework that cliche-spouting idiots would have you believe.

There isn't much relevance left to the remainder of "defense" (i.e. glovework) once you've separated it from all the good pitching you've already identified as key. They're not the same!

The only way "defense" wins championships is if you include pitching. Once you've named pitching as the key, the rest of defense (glovework) falls waaaay down the priority list. Two notable priorities ahead of "glovework" would be "the little things" and "the 3-run homer." Or we could use a whole new cliche, "pitching and offense win championships."

Finally, the Chicago White Sox are the living proof of what a load a hooey that cliche "pitching and defense wins championships" truly is. We haven't won jack since the deadball era... and it's no coincidence! The idiots in the Sox front office have believed the untrue cliche for over 80 years, too. Call it "Mike Squires Syndrome" or "Chronic Brain Wasting Disease." Take your pick.

:cool:

elrod
04-21-2005, 09:54 AM
As I suspected, 11-4 is NOT tied for the best 15-game start in White Sox history. The 1919 White Sox started 12-3, and went 24-7 before coming down to earth a bit.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/1919_sched.shtml

Realist
11-06-2005, 11:38 PM
This current team don't suck. I'm sure that if someone were to start a thread with this same title in late October when all our faces hurt from smiling, it'd be a pretty fun thread.

Stranger things have happened. Let's have fun and see what pans out.

I hope I'm committing a "no no" by bumping this old thread to the top. I don't think I am. I don't see how anybody can be faulted for not believing the 2005 team could possibly be the best Sox team ever way back in April, so I imagine there won't be any hurt feelings.

However, it is kinda cool to see how a few people on this thread had a little inkling of things to come way back then. :wink:

[if bumping this thread up was wrong, please be gentle with me. I have only the best intentions]

IronFisk
11-07-2005, 12:01 AM
I don't see how anybody can be faulted for not believing the 2005 team could possibly be the best Sox team ever way back in April, so I imagine there won't be any hurt feelings.

BIG thanks for resurrecting this! What apparently started out as a joke thread from someone who is now a banned member, has in my book turned into one of the most prophetic threads ever! Amazing stuff if you read back on those comments in April.

So, taken altogther now...

:threadrules:

Realist
11-07-2005, 12:13 AM
Balance is what wins a championship. You need D, Pitching, Power, and speed. You need a whole team full of players, starting and on your bench that can help you win games.

8 Man-Ram's (Powerful w/ no Defense) aren't winning a championship. 8 Cabrera's (weak hitting Defenders) won't win a championship. 8 Ichiro's (Balanced speedy/golden-gloved/mild powered players) might have a shot.

The Belle/Thomas combo was only effective when someone was on base in front of them. The Maggs/Frank/Kong combo didn't do it. We had the sickest lineup for power EVER last season, and we didn't do it. (We might have if healthy or with more depth or pitching, but still... it didn't work)

This is one of the most well-balanced teams I can remember. I'll take my chances with 5 stud pitchers, a great infield, a solid outfield, A deep roster, 4-5 runs a game, and spread out Hr's that will be perhaps 40 less than last season at the most.

So far the people we've waited on the past few years have shown up (Garland, Marte, Crede) and the players many gave up on (Contreras, El Duque, A.J, Everett) have shown up as well. I love Iguchi-Uribe-Crede-Konerko in the infield. I honestly think a lot of our pitching success might have to do with A.J. calling games behind the plate. I like the range in the outfield for the most part.

The speed is back. The D is better. The Power mostly stayed. The pitching came out of nowhere.

If we play like this til the All-Star break, I'll be very very excited, and not very surprised. This team has great balance and plays well in tough situations. I miss the fireworks (Even though we've had our share already, and Frank comes back in May/June), but if this team keeps pitching like this.. they will be the best in a long long time.

You, my friend are an absolute freak of nature. :o:

That is an amazing post you wrote way back in April.