PDA

View Full Version : 2005 Sox "lucky?" What about 2000 Sox?


Corlose 15
04-22-2005, 05:30 PM
I've seen a lot of people (not necesarily on this board) talk about how lucky the Sox have been in their winning streak. For instance geting so many double plays against the Twins with the bases loaded.

It seems to me that getting someone to GIDP when you need it is making the right pitch when you have to make it, not being lucky. I think that the good teams make it so that they're in the position to get the breaks.

Now, Paulie's RBI single yesterday was lucky but for the most part I think that the Sox good start is due to solid fundamental baseball, not luck. It just bothers me that people have been trying to dismiss it as luck.

Thoughts?

DannyCaterFan
04-22-2005, 05:36 PM
I definately agree that the Sox are making their own luck by playing good sound fundamental baseball. The defense and pitching has been outstanding and we can expect improved timely hitting as the season goes on. I expected this kind of power hitting, but they still need to improve the OBP and timely hitting. Let's hope the pitching can maintain their current pace.

PAPChiSox729
04-22-2005, 05:37 PM
I am a firm believer that you make your own luck. Good teams win any all kinds of games, blowouts or close ones. Saying that, I was at the first game against Minny on Monday and the Sox didn't play well as a whole. Fortunately, Everett carried them through. My point is that the Sox aren't going to win as many close games as they have been because close losses will happen. They won't catch all of the breaks. They will just catch most of them because they are a good team.

MRKARNO
04-22-2005, 05:40 PM
The way I'd put it is that the White Sox have been lucky-good. You really can't say that it's one and not the other. Have they been good? Yes. Have they also been lucky? Absolutely. How else can you explain all of those critical double plays coming in one-run and 2-run games. You dont allow 1 run on 14 hits with skill alone. There's a bit of lucky involved certainly. Now, I think even if the White Sox had normal or even bad luck, they'd be at 10-6 or 9-7 right now, which isnt all that bad, but the luck is what has seperated us from the pack in the American League up to this point. There is nothing to say that the luck will keep up. There is nothing to say that it will not. The Sox might be able to keep it up, we just don't know yet.

daveeym
04-22-2005, 05:47 PM
Hate to use a cliche but "You make your own luck."

zach074
04-22-2005, 05:50 PM
Sometimes being lucky is better than being good.

onenine19
04-22-2005, 05:58 PM
Sometimes being lucky is better than being good.

"Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." :D:

StuForumStuCazzo
04-22-2005, 06:11 PM
I thought they were real lucky in the Minny series, not just because of the DPs, but because of the pitches hung by our Cubans not being killed

mweflen
04-22-2005, 06:13 PM
2005: Winning Lucky.

What's so wrong with that? It has the word "winning" in it.

MIgrenade
04-22-2005, 06:33 PM
The fact is that solid teams don't screw up and wait for the game to come to them and capitalize. The Twins have been doing that for years now. How many "lucky" bounces have they had on that turf?

Jjav829
04-22-2005, 06:40 PM
Who cares if we're getting lucky? We're still winning. Besides, you can never tell what is luck right away. Look at 2000. Pure luck. That team wasn't that good. We got lucky, everything clicked and we won the division. I remember saying that wasn't luck. Oops. In retrospect, it was. I did the same thing with the 2001 Bears. Everyone said it was luck. I didn't think there was as much luck as most thought. Oops, again. I was wrong. It was luck. Who cares? It was still fun and the W's counted just the same. If we are just getting lucky, it'll run out at some point and then we'll know it was luck. Until then, just worry about the W's and L's.

IowaSox1971
04-23-2005, 02:24 AM
I agree that we've had some bounces go our way, but we also had a crucial check-swing call go against Everett in that Seattle game that we lost on Sunday. That was a bad break. Also, in our loss at Minnesota, Crede barely missed coming up with a LeCroy grounder that could have ended the inning just before Hunter hit his decisive three-run homer. What's been impressive is that we're not really hitting that great but we're still 13-4, and we actually could have won each of those four games that we lost.

owensmouth
04-23-2005, 03:27 AM
Who cares if we're getting lucky? We're still winning. Besides, you can never tell what is luck right away. Look at 2000. Pure luck. That team wasn't that good. We got lucky, everything clicked and we won the division. I remember saying that wasn't luck. Oops. In retrospect, it was.Luck? Yeah, bad luck. In 2000 the White Sox were not only good offensively, but they had the makings of a darn good pitching staff. In mid June it appeared we would have two and maybe three twenty game winners. We had a solid relief corps. Then the luck hit... and there went the pitching staff. Without those injuries to the pitching staff the White Sox would have dominated for several years.

elrod
04-23-2005, 08:17 AM
Who cares if we're getting lucky? We're still winning. Besides, you can never tell what is luck right away. Look at 2000. Pure luck. That team wasn't that good. We got lucky, everything clicked and we won the division. I remember saying that wasn't luck. Oops. In retrospect, it was. I did the same thing with the 2001 Bears. Everyone said it was luck. I didn't think there was as much luck as most thought. Oops, again. I was wrong. It was luck. Who cares? It was still fun and the W's counted just the same. If we are just getting lucky, it'll run out at some point and then we'll know it was luck. Until then, just worry about the W's and L's.

That's just silly. The 2000 team wasn't just "lucky". They were one of the top hitting and pitching teams in baseball for the first half of the season, and Foulke emerged as a dominant closer. The reason they stunk in 2001 was the injuries. And in 2002 a new pattern emerged where the guys just tried to hit home runs.

If the White Sox are winning on luck this year then the Minnesota Twins have been winning on luck for the last several years. And I think it's BS. Part of winning is causing the other team to press. The Twins the other night started pressing after they failed to convert the first couple of big situations, beginning with Torii Hunter's failure to knock in a run with bases loaded and one out. If you want to see a team with an incredible propensity to fail in big situations check out the Cubs. You think it's bad luck that Corey Patterson is always the one who K's with a man on third and one out? No, it's because he has a history of pressing and pitchers take advantage. I think Contreras and El Duque figured out that the Twins were in the midst of a very un-Twinlike period of relying on the long ball (they have one of the highest slugging percentages in baseball right now) and they were able to induce guys like Hunter to overswing and end up with easy grounders or popouts. The Twins on Monday and Tuesday really did look like the White Sox of the last few years...and the White Sox really looked like the Twins. Is it lucky, then? No, it's smarts.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-23-2005, 09:04 AM
:iron
"I'm sick of skill! I'll take luck!!!"

Truer words have never been spoken. If the other team is lucky, no amount of "skill" is going to win the game for you.

Lord knows in the past this forum has been filled with whines and complaints whenever the Sox were the team hitting into all those double-plays, hitting meaningless solo home runs, etc. etc. We Sox Fans are such enablers, we even chalked up the whole mess to our own team's raunch and the magical mystery powers of the Minnesota Twins... even claiming they were "lucky" by design.
:kukoo:

Unlike Iron Mike and football, no baseball team can expect to be "lucky" for a full season because baseball plays 162 games, not 16.

The 2000 Sox won 95 games. That was no kind of luck.

The 2001 Bears winning 13 games? That was luck.

:cool:

gobears1987
04-23-2005, 09:12 AM
The 2000 Sox won 95 games. That was no kind of luck.

The 2001 Bears winning 13 games? That was luck.

:cool:


This is so true. The SOx legititmitely beat tought teams throughout the lont 6 month season. Luck can't last that many games. The Bears were the luckiest team in 2001. See the infamous back-to-back Mike Brown OTs. The Sox are just a good team. DPs are not created by luck, but rather good pitches with some sink on them mixed with good gloves like Uribe, Crede, and Gooch. This team is winning not because of luck, but because of "grinders."

fquaye149
04-23-2005, 09:56 AM
yeah - you don't win in baseball just because you have a lucky team.


an ugly team though...

MRKARNO
04-23-2005, 10:06 AM
Unlike Iron Mike and football, no baseball team can expect to be "lucky" for a full season because baseball plays 162 games, not 16.

The 2000 Sox won 95 games. That was no kind of luck.

The 2001 Bears winning 13 games? That was luck.

:cool:


I agree. Now a start like the White Sox have had this year could be due to luck, but if they keep this up, it's not luck, no matter how many close games they win. To be able to take advantage of the other team's mistakes (often attributed to luck) consistantly, your pitching has to keep you in the game. If your starter comes out after 6 and you're down 3-2, you're not going to have a chance to win this game and take advantage of the other team's mistakes if the bullpen gives up 3 the next inning.

One thing you could accuse the 2000 team of having was many players in their career years or one of the better years of their career. But that is not luck. Luck is when the opponent commits an error on the throw a groundball to short when your team is down 2 and the bases are loaded. There is no luck in scoring 978 runs, one of the highest totals of any team in major league history.

MINFAN1
04-23-2005, 10:45 AM
Luck follows good teams, but good teams produce thier own luck, and we have done that with solid pitching, and defense up to this point. The infield is the best I have seen in years. What is it now 19 double-plays, and some started on the first base side by Paulie, who some say is just an adaquat first baseman. I think he should be commended for his defense, as well as his offense. And what about Crede, and Uribe, what great arms they have. Iguchi is always there, and getting better. A.J. had his flaws at the beginning defensivley, but his work with the pitching is been great. Scott P. and his speed has scored us some runs, and the outfield is sound defensivley. No matter what comes up during the rest of the season. We will be a team that is fun to watch play baseball, and we should be in it all the way.

Deadguy
04-23-2005, 10:45 AM
Look at 2000. Pure luck. That team wasn't that good.


*****. A team that scores 978 runs isn't "lucky". 162 games isn't a small sample size by any means. If a team can play that well over the course of a season then they aren't lucky, they're good.

MRKARNO
04-23-2005, 10:51 AM
Look at 2000. Pure luck. That team wasn't that good. We got lucky, everything clicked and we won the division. I remember saying that wasn't luck. Oops. In retrospect, it was.

Jjav, sorry, but I really dissagree with you here. You cannot score 978 runs by luck. You cannot be one of the best team offenses of all time and have it due to luck. The team featured many guys with career years or near-career years, but is that really luck? I don't think so. Thomas was healthy and powered the offense. Is that luck? Magglio, Lee and Konerko had years in line with their careers. I dont think it's fair to say that the 2000 team was lucky, considering the number of runs they scored. Now they were not a team built for the playoffs, that's for sure, but they were a very good team.

Jjav829
04-23-2005, 11:05 AM
Luck? Yeah, bad luck. In 2000 the White Sox were not only good offensively, but they had the makings of a darn good pitching staff. In mid June it appeared we would have two and maybe three twenty game winners. We had a solid relief corps. Then the luck hit... and there went the pitching staff. Without those injuries to the pitching staff the White Sox would have dominated for several years.

Wait, let me get this straight. You believe Mike Sirotka, Jim Parque, James Baldwin and Cal Eldred were going to turn into a dominant pitching staff? I think you need to look at these names again. None of these guys have ever shown signs of becoming a dominant starter before or after injuries. They were all mediocre pitchers who put up a very good year. The only hope for future years was our supposedly good young arms of Kip Wells, Jon Garland and Jon Rauch. We've seen how that worked out. The same can be said of the bullpen. Foulke and Eyre are the only two guys to have success since then. Howry was brutal for a few years before finally coming back strong with the Indians last year. Bill Simas had a career year as did Kelly Wunsch. Sean Lowe gave us some quality innings. None of these three has been successful last year. These guys don't make up a quality pitching staff. That's why when Kenny took over he had to rebuild the pitching staff. He knew that and finally he has managed to put together a pitching staff that has a bright future.

Jjav829
04-23-2005, 11:10 AM
OK, after reading several posts, I think people are misunderstanding what my point was. I wasn't talking about how they were winning games as being lucky. The 2000 team legitimately outslugged people. They certainly weren't getting lucky bounces or anything like that. That wasn't my point. My point was that they got lucky in the sense that the pitching staff was not nearly as good as they performed. Read my last post for more. I was using the word luck more in the sense that 2000 was a fluke year. We had pitchers give us career years and that was a big part of why we won.

Fake Chet Lemon
04-23-2005, 11:11 AM
The Royals blew a double play against us throwing high to first and we scored a run. Our solid defense turns those double plays, nothing to do with luck. But if we mention that, they'll say "See, those Lucky White Sox again. They shouldn't have scored that run on Everett's grounder."

PaleHoseGeorge
04-23-2005, 11:16 AM
OK, after reading several posts, I think people are misunderstanding what my point was. I wasn't talking about how they were winning games as being lucky. The 2000 team legitimately outslugged people. They certainly weren't getting lucky bounces or anything like that. That wasn't my point. My point was that they got lucky in the sense that the pitching staff was not nearly as good as they performed. Read my last post for more. I was using the word luck more in the sense that 2000 was a fluke year. We had pitchers give us career years and that was a big part of why we won.

Fine. If you think it's the '00 pitching staff that was "lucky," how do you explain away the three consecutive losses in the ALDS?
:?:

We didn't lose those games because of the pitching staff. In fact the pitching was damned good. It was the SOX BATS that went silent, the very same ones you claim were legitimately good, not lucky.

And how do the ARM INJURIES to Sirotka, Baldwin, Eldred, and Parque suddenly make them into bad pitchers, not unlucky ones?
:o:

Give it up. When the topic is luck and skill, you don't have a clue.

mrwag
04-23-2005, 11:29 AM
I don't believe there is such thing as luck. If you have talent, and the team plays as a team and is sound fundamentally, you win. Period. There's no "magic" to it, and no "luck".

2000 was not a fluke, nor was it luck. Everyone came to play, and they played to the levels they were capable of. The next few years were all about injuries, guys not playing as a team (Sportscenter hi-lite chasers), and with sub-par ballplayers. Pretty simple.

This year the Sox are a much more sound team, that knows how to play ball and take advantage of the opposing team's mistakes. That's winning baseball, and it's the difference between a good team and a bad team.

Ol' No. 2
04-23-2005, 11:37 AM
Fine. If you think it's the '00 pitching staff that was "lucky," how do you explain away the three consecutive losses in the ALDS?
:?:

We didn't lose those games because of the pitching staff. In fact the pitching was damned good. It was the SOX BATS that went silent, the very same ones you claim were legitimately good, not lucky.

And how do the ARM INJURIES to Sirotka, Baldwin, Eldred, and Parque suddenly make them into bad pitchers, not unlucky ones?
:o:

Give it up. When the topic is luck and skill, you don't have a clue.I have to agree with jjav, here, except it wasn't the starting pitching, which was actually pretty average. Look at the number of players who had career years. Jose Valentin, Herbert Perry, Charles Johnson all had the best years of their career. Frank Thomas had an MVP year, and his best since 1997. Then they came back to earth in the playoffs. With a thud.

Players have up years and down years, but when you have that many key players all having career years, I call that luck.

MVP* actually awarded to Giambi, who gets the asterisk.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-23-2005, 12:13 PM
I have to agree with jjav, here, except it wasn't the starting pitching, which was actually pretty average. Look at the number of players who had career years. Jose Valentin, Herbert Perry, Charles Johnson all had the best years of their career. Frank Thomas had an MVP year, and his best since 1997. Then they came back to earth in the playoffs. With a thud.

Players have up years and down years, but when you have that many key players all having career years, I call that luck.

MVP* actually awarded to Giambi, who gets the asterisk.

Jose Valentin and Herbert Perry were "key players?" Not Thomas, Ordonez, Lee, or Konerko?
:?:

Charles Johnson spending August and September with the Sox was "key" to the '00 Sox success?
:?::?:

Frank Thomas puts up MVP numbers for the THIRD TIME in his career, but gets beaten by a confessed juicer, yet he is "lucky" not "unlucky?"

:o:

voodoochile
04-23-2005, 12:15 PM
Jose Valentin and Herbert Perry were "key players?" Not Thomas, Ordonez, Lee, or Konerko?
:?:

Charles Johnson spending August and September with the Sox was "key" to the '00 Sox success?
:?::?:

Frank Thomas puts up MVP numbers for the THIRD TIME in his career, but gets beaten by a confessed juicer, yet he is "lucky" not "unlucky?"

:o:

I get the impression you guys are arguing about different points.

The players were not lucky and certainly the team was not lucky to have so many pitchers go down late in the season and then to have the bats go cold in the playoffs, but as a whole the team was lucky to have so many breakout/career years simultaneously to make their season record a bit of a fluke.

Ol' No. 2
04-23-2005, 12:27 PM
I get the impression you guys are arguing about different points.

The players were not lucky and certainly the team was not lucky to have so many pitchers go down late in the season and then to have the bats go cold in the playoffs, but as a whole the team was lucky to have so many breakout/career years simultaneously to make their season record a bit of a fluke.Exactly. Players have good years and bad years. That's just the nature of things. But if you look at playoff teams, you'll find quite a few that just happened to have a number of players all having good years simultaneously. The 2002 Angels are another good example. Call it luck, or a fluke, or whatever.

MRKARNO
04-23-2005, 01:36 PM
The 2000 team was not lucky, but it was a fluke.
Loaiza in 2003 was incredible. He hadnt been that good beforehand and it looks like he will never be able to repeat that year. Was it luck? No, that's a fluke.

Mike Brown getting 2 interceptions in two straight games after the Bears trailed by more than 2 touchdowns late? That's luck.

Lip Man 1
04-23-2005, 01:45 PM
Here is where I agree with Karno, the 2000 team was good for a 162 game season....all of that can't be attributed to luck, however it was fluke because never again did the team and many of the individual players ever come close to duplicating that performance.

A big part of that was injuries to the pitching staff but there were some players who in 2000 never were able to duplicate their numbers from that season.

Lip

owensmouth
04-23-2005, 01:48 PM
Wait, let me get this straight. You believe Mike Sirotka, Jim Parque, James Baldwin and Cal Eldred were going to turn into a dominant pitching staff? I think you need to look at these names again. None of these guys have ever shown signs of becoming a dominant starter before or after injuries. They were all mediocre pitchers who put up a very good year. The only hope for future years was our supposedly good young arms of Kip Wells, Jon Garland and Jon Rauch. We've seen how that worked out. The same can be said of the bullpen. Foulke and Eyre are the only two guys to have success since then. Howry was brutal for a few years before finally coming back strong with the Indians last year. Bill Simas had a career year as did Kelly Wunsch. Sean Lowe gave us some quality innings. None of these three has been successful last year. These guys don't make up a quality pitching staff. That's why when Kenny took over he had to rebuild the pitching staff. He knew that and finally he has managed to put together a pitching staff that has a bright future.Let me put it to you this way: If Buehrle, Freddie and Garland blow out their arms in the next two months, how good will the Sox Pitching staff be? I think that Sirotka was about to be an 18 game winner. Baldwin and Eldred were dominant through June, when they both went down. We lost Simas, our best long reliefer earlier. When KW took over as GM, he had to completely rebuild the pitching staff because everybody was terminally physically broken. And it took him too damn long to do it!

Jjav829
04-23-2005, 01:58 PM
Let me put it to you this way: If Buehrle, Freddie and Garland blow out their arms in the next two months, how good will the Sox Pitching staff be? I think that Sirotka was about to be an 18 game winner. Baldwin and Eldred were dominant through June, when they both went down. We lost Simas, our best long reliefer earlier. When KW took over as GM, he had to completely rebuild the pitching staff because everybody was terminally physically broken. And it took him too damn long to do it!

But the difference is that Buehrle, Freddy and Garland have all proven something. Look at what Baldwin did before 2000. He had three years in a row with an ERA in the 5's including a 15 loss season. Eldred had posted a 7 ERA in 1999. His two previous years he had ERA's in the high 4's, also including a 15 loss season. I'll agree with you on Sirotka. I thought he was the one starter on that 2000 team that had a good chance to post solid numbers in the coming years. I was extremely pissed off the day he was traded.

This is basically my point. Our pitchers in that year were not guys who were going to carry us in the future.

Jurr
04-23-2005, 02:07 PM
The Sox used to screw up in the 2000-2004 era by trying to pick up just one horse a year that they thought would be an ace. Now, they're playing Patriots ball. They're picking up a bulk of serviceable players with some experience to fill in the rough spots. Getting a stud pitcher (Colon, Wells, etc.) is great, but it isn't helping you if you don't have a pen. Or a fifth starter. Or a catcher that can hit.

Props to KW for getting wise.

Chisox003
04-23-2005, 02:12 PM
The Sox used to screw up in the 2000-2004 era by trying to pick up just one horse a year that they thought would be an ace. Now, they're playing Patriots ball. They're picking up a bulk of serviceable players with some experience to fill in the rough spots. Getting a stud pitcher (Colon, Wells, etc.) is great, but it isn't helping you if you don't have a pen. Or a fifth starter. Or a catcher that can hit.

Props to KW for getting wise.

I've thought about that also, the Patriots/White Sox comparison...

Now obviously, the Patriots are an incredible dynasty and nobody in any sport can be compared to them right now, but if you look at the Sox, this is a team filling in spots with proven, good BASEBALL players, who just want to win...Jermaine Dye, Carl Everett, AJ pierzynski, El Duque and so on....

While not superstars, we got very good players who do their job day in day out, and win....I bet most people couldnt name the Patriots starting WR's, or even their starting DB's in the Super Bowl last year...Yet they have 3 rings in 4 years...Not bad

S05X

PaleHoseGeorge
04-23-2005, 03:12 PM
I get the impression you guys are arguing about different points.

The players were not lucky and certainly the team was not lucky to have so many pitchers go down late in the season and then to have the bats go cold in the playoffs, but as a whole the team was lucky to have so many breakout/career years simultaneously to make their season record a bit of a fluke.

It would have been interesting to see how well the 2001 Sox played had the pitching arms from 2000 remained healthy. Sirotka was considered an up and coming pitcher, Baldwin finally managed to avoid big innings, and Parque was a former #1 sandwich pick and delivering on the promise everyone anticipated. Eldred? He was a former staff ace in Milwaukee.

Why would we expect anything less of this bunch in 2001 than we would from Contreras, Garcia, Garland, and El Duque next season in 2006? They're practically mirror images of one another.
:?:

They got hurt but still pitched through it in late-2000, were completely lost in 2001, yet the Sox still managed to come back from the dead and challenge for first place in 2001 -- even with Manuel starting .125 Clayton and .091 Ramirez everyday. Certainly I'm not the only one who remembers the team's miraculous May and June of that year? It finally blew up in their face when Foulke blew a save in the HumpDome. I remember that game like it was yesterday -- I literally fell off the couch on that home run ball.
:mad:

Sure, the '00 Sox got "lucky" with a few solid seasons from a handful of peripheral ballplayers but the core of the '00 Sox was as solid as any Sox team in recent memory. It was injuries that did them in in 2001, not having their "luck" run out. Every single one of the '00 Sox starters is already out of baseball. That's not "luck"; that's "unluck."

jordan23ventura
04-23-2005, 06:14 PM
There is no such thing as luck. Probability is the closest thing but generally only matters if you are gambling.

There is no luck in any sport because a win is earned by a combination of one team doing things right and another team not taking advantage of opportunites. The Sox aren't lucky, they have done a lot well and the opponents faced have not been able to come up when they needed to.

Jurr
04-23-2005, 06:22 PM
Luck involves one thing....avoiding injuries. However, you smack luck in the mouth by establishing depth and avoiding the terrible falloff when there's a big injury.

If you want to say a team got lucky, look no further than staying healthy. Luck is not what wins you games.

voodoochile
04-23-2005, 07:59 PM
There is no such thing as luck. Probability is the closest thing but generally only matters if you are gambling.

There is no luck in any sport because a win is earned by a combination of one team doing things right and another team not taking advantage of opportunites. The Sox aren't lucky, they have done a lot well and the opponents faced have not been able to come up when they needed to.

I agree there is no cosmic force meting out luck, but to say that no one ever gets lucky is absurd. Sure, it's a perception of luck as opposed to an actual force of nature, but that perception is reality to the person who has either good or bad luck or the fans of a given team.

Lip Man 1
04-23-2005, 11:18 PM
Here's an example of what I call 'luck.' Konerko's bad hop single in the 6th (?) inning of Thursday's game in Detroit.
99 times out of 100 that ball goes right into Guillen's glove, this time it took a freak hop over his head and the Sox scored an important run.

Sometimes it happens...

Or how about that important Twins game with the Angels in July 03 (?). That was the game where the Twins runner slammed into Bengie Molina's wrist breaking it and knocking the ball out with two outs in the 9th inning and Minnesota trailing by a run. Not only did the runner score but somehow the ball rolled 'up' the 1st base line instead of going backwards to where the Angels pitcher was backing up the play. Shannon Stewert scored all the first and they won. The Sox had won earlier in the day and I think that kept them within two games.

You can't plan that, you may see a play like that once in a decade. That's 'luck'.

Lip

jordan23ventura
04-24-2005, 12:49 AM
Here's an example of what I call 'luck.' Konerko's bad hop single in the 6th (?) inning of Thursday's game in Detroit.
99 times out of 100 that ball goes right into Guillen's glove, this time it took a freak hop over his head and the Sox scored an important run.

Sometimes it happens...

Or how about that important Twins game with the Angels in July 03 (?). That was the game where the Twins runner slammed into Bengie Molina's wrist breaking it and knocking the ball out with two outs in the 9th inning and Minnesota trailing by a run. Not only did the runner score but somehow the ball rolled 'up' the 1st base line instead of going backwards to where the Angels pitcher was backing up the play. Shannon Stewert scored all the first and they won. The Sox had won earlier in the day and I think that kept them within two games.

You can't plan that, you may see a play like that once in a decade. That's 'luck'.

Lip

I see exactly what you are saying, especially about the Konerko single, but I still wouldn't call that 'luck,' but rather a break that the team was able to capitalize on. The play itself only mattered because we scored a run, and the only reason we scored a run was because we were playing well enough to get somebody on base and in scoring position. It has been discussed a lot around here that these types of things wouldn't happen to the 2003 or 2004 team, and while I wholeheartedly agree with that, it is for the sole reason that the '03 and '04 teams probably wouldn't have had anyone on base at that time. If that same single occurred on one of the aforementioned teams it probably would have been with nobody on and 2 out, in which case we would forget about it and chalk it up as another missed opportunity.

batmanZoSo
04-24-2005, 01:18 AM
It would have been interesting to see how well the 2001 Sox played had the pitching arms from 2000 remained healthy. Sirotka was considered an up and coming pitcher, Baldwin finally managed to avoid big innings, and Parque was a former #1 sandwich pick and delivering on the promise everyone anticipated. Eldred? He was a former staff ace in Milwaukee.

Why would we expect anything less of this bunch in 2001 than we would from Contreras, Garcia, Garland, and El Duque next season in 2006? They're practically mirror images of one another.
:?:

They got hurt but still pitched through it in late-2000, were completely lost in 2001, yet the Sox still managed to come back from the dead and challenge for first place in 2001 -- even with Manuel starting .125 Clayton and .091 Ramirez everyday. Certainly I'm not the only one who remembers the team's miraculous May and June of that year? It finally blew up in their face when Foulke blew a save in the HumpDome. I remember that game like it was yesterday -- I literally fell off the couch on that home run ball.
:mad:

Sure, the '00 Sox got "lucky" with a few solid seasons from a handful of peripheral ballplayers but the core of the '00 Sox was as solid as any Sox team in recent memory. It was injuries that did them in in 2001, not having their "luck" run out. Every single one of the '00 Sox starters is already out of baseball. That's not "luck"; that's "unluck."

Ooooooh, memories.....

I think I remember that game like it was yesterday as well, but I don't remember it being a home run. Unless these are two different games we're thinking of. We were 0-6 against them to start the season and about to finally win one. With a one run lead in the ninth inning and runners on first and second, Foulke gives up a two-run double to :rolleyes:Denny Hocking :rolleyes: off the right field baggy and the game is over. Just like that. I can still hear Hawk, "so and so scores and the Twins win it 7-6." What the hell just happened? It was as if the rug was pulled out from under my soul. :whiner: Actually, that pretty much describes the 2001 season.

God what a garbage season that was. I was never more excited going into one and basically after the opening day win over Cleveland, it was all downhill. That was the high point. We lost the next game, then got swept at home against the Tigers. Parque giving up the grand slam to Tony Clark in the home opener was the first sign that things would be different. You just got a sick feeling from that series. I think we swept the Indians at home to get back to .500 at 4-4, but then went on a horrendous losing streak and shortly after that everyone started dropping like flies.

They had that 22-7 run in June, but I never bought it. Cleveland and Minnesota were already too far ahead, both playing lights out and we didn't have the horses. And every time we had a chance to do something we fell on our faces. Now if we have a healthy Thomas and Wells and the 22-7 thing still happens, we probably win the division. Somehow we mustered an 83-79 season out of that mess. Probably the worst 83-79 season I've ever experienced.