PDA

View Full Version : Valid Criticism


Bucky F. Dent
05-10-2005, 02:01 PM
I'm generally as disgusted with the national coverage that the sox are receiving as any of you are. But, the one criticism of the sox that I have heard that really does hold some weight, is that they haven't played anybody yet.

With the except of the twinkies, we haven't played a team with a .500 record yet.

The coming series against the Orioles should be interesting!

ondafarm
05-10-2005, 02:02 PM
I'm generally as disgusted with the national coverage that the sox are receiving as any of you are. But, the one criticism of the sox that I have heard that really does hold some weight, is that they haven't played anybody yet.

With the except of the twinkies, we haven't played a team with a .500 record yet.

The coming series against the Orioles should be interesting!

If you don't count the Blue Jays that is.

Ol' No. 2
05-10-2005, 02:05 PM
If you don't count the Blue Jays that is.Also, the Tigers are above .500 against teams other than the White Sox.

fledgedrallycap
05-10-2005, 02:05 PM
While that may be true, the reason some of those teams are below .500 is because the Sox have put them there by kicking their ass six times.

MUScholar21
05-10-2005, 02:06 PM
I put this up in a different thread yesterday, so the numbers were through Sunday:

The worst part of the "didn't play anyone good" argument is the fact that they have done all their damage on teams in their division-teams that the White Sox GAVE the losing records. Look at this:
vs. White Sox Overall
Tigers 1-4 14-16
Indians 2-4 12-18
Royals 0-6 8-23
Twins 1-4 19-11
Mariners 1-2 13-18
Blue Jays 0-3 16-16
Oakland 2-1 14-17

How many people were telling the world how great the Tigers were before the season, or the Indians, Twins, Mariners, and even Oakland to some extent? These teams listed have a total of 119 losses this season, and 24 of those come courtesy of the White Sox-that means the White Sox account for almost 20% of those losses. So the next time someone tells you they haven't played anyone good, gently explain to them this fact and tell them they can shove it up their....

The fact is that the White Sox have played people with poor records, but they have also contributed to those records by beating them. It is a chicken or the egg argument, and not justifiable through 6 weeks of baseball that have seen the Sox play everyone in their division twice.

ChiSoxBobette
05-10-2005, 02:11 PM
I'm generally as disgusted with the national coverage that the sox are receiving as any of you are. But, the one criticism of the sox that I have heard that really does hold some weight, is that they haven't played anybody yet.

With the except of the twinkies, we haven't played a team with a .500 record yet.

The coming series against the Orioles should be interesting!

We have'nt played anybody yet, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, Cleveland Indians all of whom were picked to finish above us and the way some experts talked about those teams one of them would be going to the WS. We on the otherhand were picked to do nothing. To make it to the playoffs you need to control those teams in your division and so far we have. Who do we need to play the angels , they were just knocked around this past week, the yankmees , Seattle whom we have played and won against( another team that with all of thier off-season pickups were going to be a much better team than us),Boston , who, who do we need to play yeah the O's are playing great baseball but hey so are we but all I see on TV is stories about the O's and all the so-called experts saying we are'nt that good. I just hope all of this negative stuff everyone says is going to happen to the White Sox keeps a fire lit under thier butts all season.

Go White Sox!

ja1022
05-10-2005, 02:11 PM
Whatever. The only thing they can do is play the games on their schedule. Why are some people looking for things to criticize. I'm going to enjoy the run for as long as it lasts and take heart in the fact that they're beating teams they should beat--which is something they haven't done in the last few years.

batmanZoSo
05-10-2005, 02:13 PM
Also, the Tigers are above .500 against teams other than the White Sox.

Not only that, they're kind of a wild card in that they've blown so many saves. With an effective closer, in all likelyhood they'd be just about even with the Twins.

rwcescato
05-10-2005, 02:14 PM
I put this up in a different thread yesterday, so the numbers were through Sunday:

The worst part of the "didn't play anyone good" argument is the fact that they have done all their damage on teams in their division-teams that the White Sox GAVE the losing records. Look at this:
vs. White Sox Overall
Tigers 1-4 14-16
Indians 2-4 12-18
Royals 0-6 8-23
Twins 1-4 19-11
Mariners 1-2 13-18
Blue Jays 0-3 16-16
Oakland 2-1 14-17

How many people were telling the world how great the Tigers were before the season, or the Indians, Twins, Mariners, and even Oakland to some extent? These teams listed have a total of 119 losses this season, and 24 of those come courtesy of the White Sox-that means the White Sox account for almost 20% of those losses. So the next time someone tells you they haven't played anyone good, gently explain to them this fact and tell them they can shove it up their....

The fact is that the White Sox have played people with poor records, but they have also contributed to those records by beating them. It is a chicken or the egg argument, and not justifiable through 6 weeks of baseball that have seen the Sox play everyone in their division twice.

If anyone wants to use the arguement that the Sox haven't played anbody yet then this satistic must lie. Only the White Sox, Twins, Orioles, Boston, Toronto, Angels and Rangers are above .500. That means Orioles, Boston, Angels and Rangers have not played against the Sox. I would say the rest of the teams ahve not played against anyone either. The 2 teams the Sox have played against that are somebody their record stands 7-1 against the somebodys. Brin on Atlanta bring Dallas this ones here for Papa Bear Halas.
Oh Yeah I forgot we haven't played against the great Cub team yet.

itsnotrequired
05-10-2005, 02:26 PM
Check out the RPI index from ESPN:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/rpi

Sox are #2 (they were #1 before yesterday's loss). If you buy into the whole Pythagorean analysis, Sox should be 21-11 instead of 24-8. They are exceeding what they should be doing based upon the teams they have played.

Jjav829
05-10-2005, 02:31 PM
There are a lot of valid criticisms about the Sox. This is not one of them. The teams they have played are bad because the Sox have beaten them! Take the Indians. They're 13-18. They've lost 4 of 6 to the Sox. If that's flipped, the Indians are 15-16 and look like a better team. The Royals record is dreadful because the Sox have beaten them 6 times already. The Tigers are 15-16, but they've lost 4 of 5 to the Sox. If the Tigers managed to win 3 of those, they're 17-14 instead. All of these teams records are worse because we've beaten them!

soxtalker
05-10-2005, 02:35 PM
I'm generally as disgusted with the national coverage that the sox are receiving as any of you are. But, the one criticism of the sox that I have heard that really does hold some weight, is that they haven't played anybody yet.

With the except of the twinkies, we haven't played a team with a .500 record yet.

The coming series against the Orioles should be interesting!

I agree that it is a valid criticism -- or, perhaps, a reason for caution. Yes, we've beaten teams that the experts predicted would be better, but that simply indicates that the experts were wrong (and they usually are for some predictions every year -- that's why you play the games). And, yes, we are the cause of some of those bad records. But it will still be much more convincing if we keep up the winning against the Orioles, Boston, Angels and Rangers -- not to mention the many more times we play the Twinkies.

mikehuff
05-10-2005, 02:36 PM
Winning 4 of 5 from the team that a lot of these "experts" were picking to win the World Series should be enough to shut these idiots up.
They're just scrapping for anything negative they can get.

What if they do win the World Series this year? What else could they say?

- If Barry Bonds would have played the full year, the Sox would never have won the World Series
- If Nomar Garciaparra would have played the full year, the Sox would never have won the World Series
- The Sox lucked out this year because the Yankees had some injuries
- It's very tough to win the division 4 years in a row. The Sox got lucky getting past the Twins.
- The White Sox got lucky in a year where other teams were reluctant to pick up star players due to the steroid testing.

Ol' No. 2
05-10-2005, 02:44 PM
Winning 4 of 5 from the team that a lot of these "experts" were picking to win the World Series should be enough to shut these idiots up.
They're just scrapping for anything negative they can get.

What if they do win the World Series this year? What else could they say?

- If Barry Bonds would have played the full year, the Sox would never have won the World Series
- If Nomar Garciaparra would have played the full year, the Sox would never have won the World Series
- The Sox lucked out this year because the Yankees had some injuries
- It's very tough to win the division 4 years in a row. The Sox got lucky getting past the Twins.
- The White Sox got lucky in a year where other teams were reluctant to pick up star players due to the steroid testing.Blah, blah, blah. When they start putting sportswriters evaluations on World Series trophies, I'll start paying more attention. Until then...

:bart

seanpmurphy
05-10-2005, 02:46 PM
I put this up in a different thread yesterday, so the numbers were through Sunday:

The worst part of the "didn't play anyone good" argument is the fact that they have done all their damage on teams in their division-teams that the White Sox GAVE the losing records. Look at this:
vs. White Sox Overall
Tigers 1-4 14-16
Indians 2-4 12-18
Royals 0-6 8-23
Twins 1-4 19-11
Mariners 1-2 13-18
Blue Jays 0-3 16-16
Oakland 2-1 14-17

How many people were telling the world how great the Tigers were before the season, or the Indians, Twins, Mariners, and even Oakland to some extent? These teams listed have a total of 119 losses this season, and 24 of those come courtesy of the White Sox-that means the White Sox account for almost 20% of those losses. So the next time someone tells you they haven't played anyone good, gently explain to them this fact and tell them they can shove it up their....

The fact is that the White Sox have played people with poor records, but they have also contributed to those records by beating them. It is a chicken or the egg argument, and not justifiable through 6 weeks of baseball that have seen the Sox play everyone in their division twice.

Valid point, but do you really think the people that a person would benefit from telling this to is going to understand it? :wink:

I agree completely though. Man the Sox are so good. :smile:

seanpmurphy
05-10-2005, 02:48 PM
[QUOTE=mikehuff]
- It's very tough to win the division 4 years in a row. The Sox got lucky getting past the Twins.
QUOTE]

Not in the NL East....Atlanta Braves have won like what, 13 straight? Of course ESPN will probably forget that fact.

Tekijawa
05-10-2005, 02:49 PM
Who have the Yankee's played so far? And are they worse than their actual record? Wonder what Pete Gammons thought on that are?

mweflen
05-10-2005, 02:52 PM
:KW"We Don't Care"

MisterB
05-10-2005, 02:55 PM
Another thing to keep in mind: the Twins have pretty much played the same guys we have, and they're 4.5 games behind us.

Maximo
05-10-2005, 02:55 PM
So......just who are these powerhouses this year that the "experts" want us to play? I'm coming to the realization that nobody is that damn good this year.

mikehuff
05-10-2005, 03:26 PM
So......just who are these powerhouses this year that the "experts" want us to play? I'm coming to the realization that nobody is that damn good this year.
Great point. Bring em on. We'll beat the crap out of them too.

SSN721
05-10-2005, 03:41 PM
So......just who are these powerhouses this year that the "experts" want us to play? I'm coming to the realization that nobody is that damn good this year.

Except us :smile: Hard to play ourselves.

dividedsk717
05-10-2005, 03:46 PM
Good teams beat bad teams ... consistently.

So where's the problem? I don't see one.

Bryan in Indy :gulp:

socko82
05-10-2005, 05:56 PM
National Media (and Eddie Munster) darling Twins 8-0 against KC and Tampa Bay

11-12 against everybody else including 1-5 against the Sox and Baltimore but the Sox haven't beaten anybody

Dan H
05-10-2005, 06:08 PM
The common wisdom to building a contending team is that you beat on the small guys and hold your own against the big guys. That is how it has always been. If the Sox weren't beating up on teams like Kansas City, these same critics would only point out that the Sox can't even beat the bad teams.

There are no guarantees the Sox will end up winning anything of significance. But I find no fault with a 24-8 mark. It is good to be objective, especially if you are the General Manager. However, they deserve credit for this start. Let's just hope they are not satisfied.