PDA

View Full Version : The Fifth spot and last year record


FanofBill
05-18-2005, 12:17 AM
An ace in 5 hole for Sox
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050517soxgamer,1,3083958.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines&ctrack=2&cset=true
At 8-0 with a 2.41 ERA, Garland is the first Sox starter to win his first eight since John Whitehead in 1935.

Last year after eight starts—right after Jon Rauch had been kicked around for five runs in 32/3 innings—Sox fifth starters were 0-8 with a 10.02 ERA.


Right now the WS record is 28-12, I don't know what their record were last year at this time but if you take away that 0-8 in the fifth spot their record would be 20-20.
Some body know what their record last year were without the fifth spot? If we take that same record at the end of the year and add Jon Garland's for this year. I think we'll be over 90 win for sure and possibly approaching 100.

TDog
05-18-2005, 12:30 AM
...
Last year after eight starts—right after Jon Rauch had been kicked around for five runs in 32/3 innings—Sox fifth starters were 0-8 with a 10.02 ERA....

Last night, Sox fourth starter got kicked around for 6 runs in 2 2/3 innings, but he's still 5-1 with an ERA under 4.

I think putting numbers on Sox starters is irrelevant, but I also think that's the strength of the team. If the "4" guy gets hammered, the "5" guy can come up big. For any given day, the ceiling for Sox top of the rotation guys realistically is as high as the bottom of the rotation guys.

That's why the Sox are in first.

doublem23
05-18-2005, 12:35 AM
"The fifth starter" is nothing more than a modern cliche for whoever is at the butt of your rotation to start the year. Ozzie has made it clear that no one will get a start skipped so it doesn't really matter. The difference in the year isn't that the "5th starter" has been on his game, it's that the Sox entered this year with 5 starters with MLB experience who could be counted on to at least hold their own and keep the team in games. That is what they have done and that is why the Sox still hold MLB's best record. No more throwing Arnie Munoz and Jason Grilli out to the lions before they're ready.

owensmouth
05-18-2005, 01:00 AM
"The fifth starter" is nothing more than a modern cliche for whoever is at the butt of your rotation to start the year. Ozzie has made it clear that no one will get a start skipped so it doesn't really matter. The difference in the year isn't that the "5th starter" has been on his game, it's that the Sox entered this year with 5 starters with MLB experience who could be counted on to at least hold their own and keep the team in games. That is what they have done and that is why the Sox still hold MLB's best record. No more throwing Arnie Munoz and Jason Grilli out to the lions before they're ready.Not when we have Contreras doing such a fine imitation.

ilsox7
05-18-2005, 01:55 AM
Not when we have Contreras doing such a fine imitation.

Yea, because his 3.52 ERA is just awful.

HomeFish
05-18-2005, 01:57 AM
Garland is the #5 starter now the same way that Loaiza was #5 by this time in 2003.

In other words, he's not the #5 at all. I'd say Garcia or Contreras should be considered that at this point.

batmanZoSo
05-18-2005, 02:17 AM
An ace in 5 hole for Sox
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050517soxgamer,1,3083958.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines&ctrack=2&cset=true
At 8-0 with a 2.41 ERA, Garland is the first Sox starter to win his first eight since John Whitehead in 1935.

Last year after eight starts—right after Jon Rauch had been kicked around for five runs in 32/3 innings—Sox fifth starters were 0-8 with a 10.02 ERA.


Right now the WS record is 28-12, I don't know what their record were last year at this time but if you take away that 0-8 in the fifth spot their record would be 20-20.
Some body know what their record last year were without the fifth spot? If we take that same record at the end of the year and add Jon Garland's for this year. I think we'll be over 90 win for sure and possibly approaching 100.

That's assuming June-September of this year pans out like June-September of last year, but there's no reason that it will. We could play .350 ball the rest of the way. Not bloody likely, but still. This is such a different team than last year, there's no telling how they'll pan out. But I would agree that this squad will win more than 90 games.

Palpidious
05-18-2005, 02:20 AM
rememeber the last time we actually had a legitimate 5th starter? it was cal eldred!!! and we went to the playoffs. too bad he and baldwin got hurt. but he was SPECTACULAR back in 2000 in the first half and really propelled us to the division crown.

batmanZoSo
05-18-2005, 02:29 AM
rememeber the last time we actually had a legitimate 5th starter? it was cal eldred!!! and we went to the playoffs. too bad he and baldwin got hurt. but he was SPECTACULAR back in 2000 in the first half and really propelled us to the division crown.

It was actually the Kipper in 2000.

Sirotka
Baldwin
Parque
Eldred
Wells

Maybe Eldred was slotted at 5, I don't remember, but that's just a number. He went 10-2 and Kip Wells sucked. So we really didn't have 5 respectable starters that year. We didn't have it in 93 and in 83 I think they used a 4 man rotation or maybe it was Jerry Koosman starting occasionally and relieving. This really might be the first time the Sox have ever had 5 quality starters.

Palpidious
05-18-2005, 02:50 AM
the 2000 staff was

sirotka
wells
parque
baldwin
eldred

in that order

doublem23
05-18-2005, 08:50 AM
That may have been the original order, but Wells didn't even pitch 100 innings for the Sox in '00 and bounced between here and Charlotte, IIRC.

The Sox only had 4 dependable starters in 2000; Sirotka, Baldwin, Parque, and Eldred. Wells and Garland combined to start 32 games in 2000 (the same number as Parque and Sirotka), but did so both with ERAs over 6.

daveeym
05-18-2005, 09:32 AM
You guys are hilarious arguing over what it means to be a 5th starter. :rolleyes:

Hangar18
05-18-2005, 09:52 AM
The Sox only had 4 dependable starters in 2000; Sirotka, Baldwin, Parque, and Eldred. Wells and Garland combined to start 32 games in 2000 (the same number as Parque and Sirotka), but did so both with ERAs over 6.

I remember all 4 of those pitchers going down with injuries by the end of the year, especially our #1 guy Eldred. So what do the SOX do in the offseason? Trade our #2 guy for David Wells. We were still down 3 pitchers
going into the season ....... we know what a mess 2001 ended up becoming...