PDA

View Full Version : Twins preach patience for now


FanofBill
06-21-2005, 05:18 PM
I know it's still early but it's to be in the driver seats for now and I hope for the rest of the season.
You have to register for this.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/509/5467282.html

We're just going through a tough week," Ryan said. "We're not exactly making up any ground on the White Sox. I'll be the first to tell you things aren't going right. I've been in this situation before, when we go through a bad stretch and everyone wants a state of the team address."
No one in the clubhouse has forgotten 2003, when the Twins trailed Kansas City by 7Ĺ games at the All-Star break but rallied to win the division

During the past week and a half, Cleveland won nine consecutive games and is 1Ĺ games behind the Twins for second place in the division. And Detroit, in town for a three-game series this week, is at .500. The AL Central never has been more competitive, and it's definitely better than 2003. But the Twins refuse to embrace the wild-card concept.

"It helps," Ryan said. "We have enough experience to know that [coming back from big deficit] is possible. We have a playoff-experienced ballclub. What we're going through isn't as nearly as bad as a couple of years ago."

But Ryan admitted he has pored over rosters lately to see if he can add a hitter.

"I have looked at it, and I'm trying to figure out how to help the cause," he said.

Chicago, on pace to win 110 games, is playing 10 games better than a year ago. The Twins actually are a game ahead of their pace of last year and are on pace to win 92 games. Through Sunday, they were the AL wild-card leaders.

Realist
06-21-2005, 05:45 PM
*&#$%^&*$#%$& Twins

dcb33
06-21-2005, 05:48 PM
Doesn't this belong in Talking Baseball?

Bully for the Twins. If they want to preach patience while digging themselves into a deeper hole, that's fine by me.

misty60481
06-21-2005, 06:20 PM
Are the Twins still in the league ???

Foulke You
06-21-2005, 06:23 PM
I wonder what offensive player Ryan was alluding to being after? The Twins farm system is definitely stacked, I wonder if they would part with any of them to bring in a bat. Anyone know what the Twins needs are right now?

skobabe8
06-21-2005, 06:35 PM
Are the Twins still in the league ???

:roflmao:

dcb33
06-21-2005, 06:40 PM
I wonder what offensive player Ryan was alluding to being after? The Twins farm system is definitely stacked, I wonder if they would part with any of them to bring in a bat. Anyone know what the Twins needs are right now?

Their middle infield is terrible and as such I'd imagine they'd be in the market for a 2B and/or SS. I'm sure they wouldn't mind finding an upgrade over Cuddyer at 3rd, either.

SoxFan76
06-21-2005, 08:35 PM
Are the Twins still in the league ???

I have a sense of humor, but there are a lot of Twin game threads around here...some people around here still think about the Twins.

Fredsox
06-22-2005, 06:42 AM
The Twins are far from dead. Anything can happen in the playoffs, and if they get hot again they can easily win the wildcard. But it's sure nice to see them squirm a bit, isn't it?:cool:

fquaye149
06-22-2005, 09:16 AM
I have a sense of humor,

it's a good thing you told us, because otherwise we sure wouldn't have known with that reply

1951Campbell
06-22-2005, 11:16 AM
The Twins are far from dead. Anything can happen in the playoffs, and if they get hot again they can easily win the wildcard. But it's sure nice to see them squirm a bit, isn't it?:cool:

I'd rather the Sox meet anyone but the Twins in the playoffs. Irrational? Maybe. But they still worry me.

TDog
06-22-2005, 11:26 AM
I can't post the link because the site it requires registration, which I refuse to do, but at work late last night I read a story from the St. Paul Pioneer Press about the Twins current "free fall." Gardenhire and Toriiiiiiiiiii say the problem is they don't have a veteran ballclub.

RedHeadPaleHoser
06-22-2005, 11:28 AM
The Twins aren't going anywhere. This is a full fledged dogfight division up until the next time the Sox play them. If the Sox continue to play as they are, up to the next Twins series, we're OK.

Know what really worries me? All Star Break - almost a momentum breaker, IMO.

Ol' No. 2
06-22-2005, 11:35 AM
The Twins aren't going anywhere. This is a full fledged dogfight division up until the next time the Sox play them. If the Sox continue to play as they are, up to the next Twins series, we're OK.

Know what really worries me? All Star Break - almost a momentum breaker, IMO.I'm going to take the contrarian view and say this race is all but over. Yeah, I know it's still only June, but the Twins aren't the team they were, and have been playing over their heads, but are now coming back to earth. If the Sox play just .500 ball the rest of the way they'll win 94 games. The Twins would have to play .600 the rest of the way to equal that number. I don't think they're up to it. In fact, by the time the Sox and Twins meet again the Twins might not even be in second place.

Irishsox1
06-22-2005, 11:35 AM
I think Torii Hunter said it best when he said that he isn't afraid of the White Sox anymore after they got rid of Carlos Lee and Magglio.

RedHeadPaleHoser
06-22-2005, 11:44 AM
I'm going to take the contrarian view and say this race is all but over. Yeah, I know it's still only June, but the Twins aren't the team they were, and have been playing over their heads, but are now coming back to earth. If the Sox play just .500 ball the rest of the way they'll win 94 games. The Twins would have to play .600 the rest of the way to equal that number. I don't think they're up to it. In fact, by the time the Sox and Twins meet again the Twins might not even be in second place.

No. 2 - growing up an Irish Catholic, I would rather be pessimistic, and be wrong. I SO WANT to agree with you, just can't. Do I think the Sox will let up? No - but I gotta hedge my enthusiasm till August.

Ol' No. 2
06-22-2005, 12:00 PM
No. 2 - growing up an Irish Catholic, I would rather be pessimistic, and be wrong. I SO WANT to agree with you, just can't. Do I think the Sox will let up? No - but I gotta hedge my enthusiasm till August.I've got a few years of futility on you, so I understand the difficulty in believing this is for real. But in all my years following the Sox, I've NEVER seen a team like this one. There are just no holes in this team. The problems we moan and groan about nearly every other team would love to have. You definately get the feeling they're going to win every single day. It's a lot like watching the 1985 Bears or the Bulls championship teams.

Sure, anything can happen, and a couple of key injuries could throw everything in the dumper. But the odds are starting to get pretty long on the Twins catching them. It would take a collapse of historic proportions. Of course, it WOULD be just our luck...

RedHeadPaleHoser
06-22-2005, 12:24 PM
I've got a few years of futility on you, so I understand the difficulty in believing this is for real. But in all my years following the Sox, I've NEVER seen a team like this one. There are just no holes in this team. The problems we moan and groan about nearly every other team would love to have. You definately get the feeling they're going to win every single day. It's a lot like watching the 1985 Bears or the Bulls championship teams.

Sure, anything can happen, and a couple of key injuries could throw everything in the dumper. But the odds are starting to get pretty long on the Twins catching them. It would take a collapse of historic proportions. Of course, it WOULD be just our luck...

Agreed. I'll sit quietly, root on and hope deep down that this is for real, NOT the dream we've all had since becoming fans.

zach23
06-22-2005, 12:30 PM
Agreed. I'll sit quietly, root on and hope deep down that this is for real, NOT the dream we've all had since becoming fans.

Start enjoying it, it looks to be a real fun summer. The season is going to fly by and be gone before you know it.
I remember how much fun it was back in 1983 and now that seems like a million years ago. Soak it all up and enjoy this team, let tomorrow be what it will be. Hopefully this fall we finally get to have the happy ending.

Ol' No. 2
06-22-2005, 12:52 PM
Start enjoying it, it looks to be a real fun summer. The season is going to fly by and be gone before you know it.
I remember how much fun it was back in 1983 and now that seems like a million years ago. Soak it all up and enjoy this team, let tomorrow be what it will be. Hopefully this fall we finally get to have the happy ending.True enough. I can't believe 70 games have gone by already. Seasons like this don't come along that often. Enjoy every minute of it.

Realist
06-22-2005, 01:03 PM
There are just no holes in this team. The problems we moan and groan about nearly every other team would love to have.

Obviously you haven't been reading the very convincing arguments in the "Trade or bench Konerko/Crede/various players going through an obligatory slump" threads.

batmanZoSo
06-22-2005, 01:17 PM
I've got a few years of futility on you, so I understand the difficulty in believing this is for real. But in all my years following the Sox, I've NEVER seen a team like this one. There are just no holes in this team. The problems we moan and groan about nearly every other team would love to have. You definately get the feeling they're going to win every single day. It's a lot like watching the 1985 Bears or the Bulls championship teams.

Sure, anything can happen, and a couple of key injuries could throw everything in the dumper. But the odds are starting to get pretty long on the Twins catching them. It would take a collapse of historic proportions. Of course, it WOULD be just our luck...

The Sox aren't really a collapse team historically, at least not when they're way ahead like this. They usually just get it done and don't break our hearts that way. They seem to save that for the playoffs. :cool:

ondafarm
06-22-2005, 01:19 PM
Even the Baseball Savant, who picked the White Sox to finish anywhere from 3rd to 5th in the ALCD is now (http://baseballsavant.blogspot.com/) suggesting that the Twins are out of it and the race is for second place.

Just to poke fun at the Baseball Savant (I sent him an email saying he should change names to the Baseball Idiot instead) here is his season preview on the Sox. http://baseballsavant.blogspot.com/2005/02/chicago-white-sox-2005-season-preview_12.html

His portend on the White Sox offense was: "The White Sox donít have any power in their lineup and they will strikeout a lot." Now if that's not prophetic (the White Sox are currently fourth in homeruns and 9nth [or 5th or 6th best in the league] in strikeouts.) Note the W.Sox have 426 Ks in 70 games, the Twins 418 Ks in 68 games, the Sox are better but have more Ks right now.

SOXSINCE'70
06-22-2005, 01:28 PM
I'd rather the Sox meet anyone but the Twins in the playoffs. Irrational? Maybe. But they still worry me.


The Twins,Tigers and 'Toons concern me as well.
I don't care if the Sox have a 9 game lead.July-Sept. sees
them playing a difficult schedule (7 games with the Blow Sawx,
who have won their first 2 meetings with the 'Toons, 6 games with
the Yankmees,and many contests in Aug. and Sept. with the
Twinkies,Tribe and Tiggers).


I view the 9 game lead as insurance the Sox may
(or may not) need as the season winds down.

But it's nice that pressure's on the other 4 A.L.
Central opponents to play their best ball for once.:bandance:
The Sox haven't been in this position for 5 years. :)

DumpJerry
06-22-2005, 01:31 PM
The Sox aren't really a collapse team historically, at least not when they're way ahead like this. They usually just get it done and don't break our hearts that way. They seem to save that for the playoffs. :cool:
I agree. We have the best record in MLB from 2000 to the present. I think going into this season the Yankees had us beat, but it was not by much and that surely has been overcome (ok stat heads, do your thing!).

We don't choke big time during the season, just enough to get 2nd place. However, this year is just a Very Special Year. We knew it last January when we started the "Bring It On!" chant here at WSI. Never before had I seen so many Sox fans so optimistic for the season that we were ready before pitchers and catchers reported. After the C. Lee deal and A.J. signing, we just knew in our guts that we would do well, but never imagined it would be this good.

To paraphrase Hawk, sit back strap it down and enjoy the next few years, we have the core of a butt-kicking team on the South Side!:D:

SOXSINCE'70
06-22-2005, 01:33 PM
Seasons like this don't come along that often. Enjoy every minute of it.

I intend to.After the Sox played great ball in the first half of the 2000
campaign,I watched them barely play .500 the rest of the way.
The rollercoaster ride was too emotionally draining for me.
I vowed that if the Sox were ever in this position again,i'd sit back
and enjoy the ride.It's been a great season thus far.I look forward
to the challenges ahead.Bring 'em on.

So.ILSoxFan
06-22-2005, 02:02 PM
here is his season preview on the Sox. http://baseballsavant.blogspot.com/2005/02/chicago-white-sox-2005-season-preview_12.html


"Podsednik: Why there is an infatuation with this guy Iíll never know...Heís playing for the wrong manager though. Guillen will have him swinging at every pitch thrown to him and the White Sox will take a MAJOR hit offensively with him at the top of the order."

:rolling:

Flight #24
06-22-2005, 02:04 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I think this is likely the beginning of another Twins "retrenching". They're going to have trouble making the playoffs this year, esp since you know Boston & NY will go get whoever they need while the Twins will have to rely on minor league help or smaller deals. They've really been able to do as well as they have in recent years because the division has been down, not because they've been better than other teams outside the division.

As for next year, they're going to need to get immediate, impactful contributions from a number of areas. 1-2 SPs, MI, and an OF/DH slot. And they won't have a ton of money to spend unless they bump payroll, which is unlikely. They could have all of their kids come up as world-beaters, but I'd guess that next year they're around .500 or slightly above.

Then, in the 07-08 timeframe, they'll start losing core guys: Hunter, Radke, Nathan, etc. Again, these guys may be replaced with studs from the minors, but if they don't come up great out of the gate, they'll be around .500.

They've been good because they had a core of very good, relatively cheap guys in hunter, Santana, Radke, Stewart, Jones, and have been able to fill in with cheap, good (but not great) guys around them. Currently their "replacement core" consists of Morneau and Mauer. If they can't produce any more cheap studs, it'll be tough for them to be a 90+win team for the next couple of years.

Tragg
06-22-2005, 02:16 PM
I may be in the minority here, but I think this is likely the beginning of another Twins "retrenching". I completely agree with that, and I wouldn't be surprised if they finish 4th this year.
I will give them credit for knowing how to build from the ground up, but it did take 8 (1992-2000) or so years for this edition to bloom. (which is better than KC, Pitt, Mil or TB who try but don't know how to build from the ground up). They have to keep that pipeline flowing all the time for it to maintain, which is hard to do.

wdelaney72
06-22-2005, 02:30 PM
This type of nonsense about "patience" is a lot of the same crap we've had to listen to since 2000. It's not looking good for the Twins.

Cleveland may end up being a better team than the Twins, but they still have issues. I'm still not overly thrilled with their bullpen. I like our team better.

Ol' No. 2
06-22-2005, 08:13 PM
The Sox aren't really a collapse team historically, at least not when they're way ahead like this. They usually just get it done and don't break our hearts that way. They seem to save that for the playoffs. :cool:Have you been out of the country the last two seasons? The Sox took leads into critical series with the Twins both years and laid a gigantic egg both times. Fortunately, the way things are going, by the time the Twinks get another shot at the Sox they may be struggling to stay in second place.

soxjim
06-22-2005, 08:37 PM
It would be nice if it was Labor Day coming up with a 9 game lead. Just enjoy the moment now SOX fans. Its early yet.

elrod
06-22-2005, 08:47 PM
Have you been out of the country the last two seasons? The Sox took leads into critical series with the Twins both years and laid a gigantic egg both times. Fortunately, the way things are going, by the time the Twinks get another shot at the Sox they may be struggling to stay in second place.

Neither of those two seasons were "collapses". At no time in 2003 or 2004 did the White Sox have more than a 2 game lead on the Twins. I would call them "fades" and not "collapses". You want a collapse? Think of:

1995 Angels
1978 Red Sox
1964 Phillies

Even the Cubs last year didn't "collapse" down the stretch. They were tied with Houston in the last week and couldn't get it done. (Thank you Victor Diaz). A collapse occurs when a team has a substantial lead and blows it late.

Some teams have large leads by default, like the 2003 Royals, and "collapse" only because the rest of the division starts playing better. When KC had a 7.5 game lead at the AS Break the second place Twins were under .500. But a real collapse is when a team is playing very well, has a big lead in the division, and then falters down the stretch.

Ol' No. 2
06-22-2005, 09:06 PM
Neither of those two seasons were "collapses". At no time in 2003 or 2004 did the White Sox have more than a 2 game lead on the Twins. I would call them "fades" and not "collapses". You want a collapse? Think of:

1995 Angels
1978 Red Sox
1964 Phillies

Even the Cubs last year didn't "collapse" down the stretch. They were tied with Houston in the last week and couldn't get it done. (Thank you Victor Diaz). A collapse occurs when a team has a substantial lead and blows it late.

Some teams have large leads by default, like the 2003 Royals, and "collapse" only because the rest of the division starts playing better. When KC had a 7.5 game lead at the AS Break the second place Twins were under .500. But a real collapse is when a team is playing very well, has a big lead in the division, and then falters down the stretch.It sure as hell FELT like a collapse.:(:

samram
06-22-2005, 09:30 PM
I agree. We have the best record in MLB from 2000 to the present. I think going into this season the Yankees had us beat, but it was not by much and that surely has been overcome (ok stat heads, do your thing!).

Maybe, I'm reading this incorrectly, but there's no way the Sox have the best record in MLB from 2000-present. NYY, Boston, Oakland, Anaheim, Minnesota, and Atlanta all have to have better records. Like I said, maybe I'm just misreading this.

Tragg
06-22-2005, 11:36 PM
Then, in the 07-08 timeframe, they'll start losing core guys: Hunter, Radke, Nathan, etc. Again, these guys may be replaced with studs from the minors, but if they don't come up great out of the gate, they'll be around .500.

They've been good because they had a core of very good, relatively cheap guys in hunter, Santana, Radke, Stewart, Jones, and have been able to fill in with cheap, good (but not great) guys around them. Currently their "replacement core" consists of Morneau and Mauer. If they can't produce any more cheap studs, it'll be tough for them to be a 90+win team for the next couple of years.Right now, they're paying a good portion of their budget for Radke That's a plus for us.

Tragg
06-22-2005, 11:38 PM
Maybe, I'm reading this incorrectly, but there's no way the Sox have the best record in MLB from 2000-present. NYY, Boston, Oakland, Anaheim, Minnesota, and Atlanta all have to have better records. Like I said, maybe I'm just misreading this.

I would guess from 1990-present, we're in the top 5. I'd guess Atlanta, Yankees, Chicago, Houston and maybe Boston or St Louis. And counting this season, we definitely have a better record than the Twins since 2000, aided by beating them by around 25 games in 2000.

As for collapses, I'd say my first year following the team, 1967, was pretty close to a collapse. Little did I know then that 38 years later I'd still be looking for my first playoff series win.

row18
06-22-2005, 11:49 PM
Ol No 2, you are correct, the Twins are done. The Sox just should look ahead and continue to play their ball, it's their year.

batmanZoSo
06-23-2005, 12:56 AM
Have you been out of the country the last two seasons? The Sox took leads into critical series with the Twins both years and laid a gigantic egg both times. Fortunately, the way things are going, by the time the Twinks get another shot at the Sox they may be struggling to stay in second place.

Those were see-saw battles. Last year we were out by August. 2003 was the closest thing to a collapse in the sense of having it in our grasps and then blowing it. But that was just a two game lead after winning the first two of the four game set.

dspete
06-23-2005, 03:10 AM
From 2000 thru 2004

Rnk) Team Games Wins Losses Win% RS RA
1) NYY 808 487 319 0.604 4346 3748
2) OAK 809 483 326 0.597 4192 3497
3) ATL 809 481 327 0.595 3957 3330
4) STL 810 475 335 0.586 4219 3558
5) SFG 809 473 335 0.585 4112 3519
6) SEA 810 456 354 0.563 4141 3566
7) BOS 809 453 356 0.560 4333 3732
8) LAD 810 442 368 0.546 3604 3356
9) MIN 809 430 379 0.532 3868 3831
10) HOU 810 428 382 0.528 4142 3783
11) CHW 810 428 382 0.528 4288 3978
12) ANA 810 425 385 0.525 3978 3720
13) ARI 810 410 400 0.506 3761 3689
14) FLA 809 408 401 0.504 3641 3696
15) PHI 809 403 406 0.498 3795 3751
16) CLE 810 403 407 0.498 4143 4109
17) CHC 810 397 413 0.490 3760 3712
18) TOR 809 394 415 0.487 4054 4138
19) NYM 808 388 420 0.480 3465 3639
20) TEX 810 376 434 0.464 4267 4587
21) CIN 811 374 436 0.462 3713 4182
22) SDP 810 372 438 0.459 3649 3978
23) COL 810 370 440 0.457 4355 4516
24) MON 810 368 442 0.454 3489 3917
25) BAL 811 353 456 0.436 3733 4165
26) PIT 808 350 458 0.433 3524 4021
27) KCR 810 345 465 0.426 3901 4451
28) MIL 810 332 477 0.410 3455 4083
29) TBD 807 319 488 0.395 3507 4341
30) DET 809 315 494 0.389 3540 4339
From 1990 to 1999
Rnk) Team Games Wins Losses Win% RS RA
1) ATL 1554 925 629 0.595 7297 6053
2) NYY 1554 851 702 0.548 7877 7117
3) CLE 1551 823 728 0.531 7970 7447
4) CHW 1554 816 735 0.526 7657 7352
5) BOS 1555 814 741 0.523 7549 7287
6) HOU 1555 813 742 0.523 7078 6595
7) CIN 1556 809 746 0.520 7164 6803
8) TEX 1555 807 747 0.519 7946 7783
9) TOR 1556 801 754 0.515 7405 7197
10) LAD 1554 797 757 0.513 6689 6428
11) BAL 1552 794 757 0.512 7568 7215
12) ARI 324 165 159 0.509 1573 1488
13) SFG 1556 790 766 0.508 7153 7187
14) MON 1554 776 777 0.500 6617 6646
15) PIT 1554 774 779 0.498 6922 7061
16) OAK 1554 773 781 0.497 7554 7771
17) NYM 1553 767 786 0.494 6931 6644
18) SEA 1551 764 787 0.493 7756 7696
19) ANA 486 239 247 0.492 2327 2403
20) STL 1554 758 794 0.488 6804 7006
21) SDP 1557 758 799 0.487 6777 6919
22) MIL 1553 742 811 0.478 7388 7573
23) COL 1071 512 559 0.478 5732 6143
24) CHC 1553 739 813 0.476 6946 7333
25) PHI 1555 732 823 0.471 6846 7305
26) KCR 1550 725 825 0.468 6985 7441
27) CAL 1069 499 570 0.467 4712 5096
28) MIN 1552 718 833 0.463 7248 7865
29) DET 1554 702 852 0.452 7599 8332
30) FLA 1068 472 596 0.442 4508 5120
31) TBD 324 132 192 0.407 1392 1664
From 1990 to 2004
Rnk) Team Games Wins Losses Win% RS RA
1) ATL 2363 1406 956 0.595 11254 9383
2) NYY 2362 1338 1021 0.567 12223 10865
3) BOS 2364 1267 1097 0.536 11882 11019
4) SFG 2365 1263 1101 0.534 11265 10706
5) OAK 2363 1256 1107 0.532 11746 11268
6) CHW 2364 1244 1117 0.527 11945 11330
7) HOU 2365 1241 1124 0.525 11220 10378
8) LAD 2364 1239 1125 0.524 10293 9784
9) STL 2364 1233 1129 0.522 11023 10564
10) CLE 2361 1226 1135 0.519 12113 11556
11) SEA 2361 1220 1141 0.517 11897 11262
12) ANA 1296 664 632 0.512 6305 6123
13) ARI 1134 575 559 0.507 5334 5177
14) TOR 2365 1195 1169 0.505 11459 11335
15) TEX 2365 1183 1181 0.500 12213 12370
16) CIN 2367 1183 1182 0.500 10877 10985
17) NYM 2361 1155 1206 0.489 10396 10283
18) MIN 2361 1148 1212 0.486 11116 11696
19) BAL 2363 1147 1213 0.486 11301 11380
20) MON 2364 1144 1219 0.484 10106 10563
21) CHC 2363 1136 1226 0.481 10706 11045
22) PHI 2364 1135 1229 0.480 10641 11056
23) SDP 2367 1130 1237 0.477 10426 10897
24) PIT 2362 1124 1237 0.476 10446 11082
25) COL 1881 882 999 0.469 10087 10659
26) FLA 1877 880 997 0.469 8149 8816
27) CAL 1069 499 570 0.467 4712 5096
28) MIL 2363 1074 1288 0.455 10843 11656
29) KCR 2360 1070 1290 0.453 10886 11892
30) DET 2363 1017 1346 0.430 11139 12671
31) TBD 1131 451 680 0.399 4899 6005

dspete
06-23-2005, 03:11 AM
Sorry Lost the formating .

TDog
06-23-2005, 05:30 AM
Neither of those two seasons were "collapses". At no time in 2003 or 2004 did the White Sox have more than a 2 game lead on the Twins. I would call them "fades" and not "collapses". You want a collapse? Think of:

1995 Angels
1978 Red Sox
1964 Phillies

Even the Cubs last year didn't "collapse" down the stretch. They were tied with Houston in the last week and couldn't get it done. (Thank you Victor Diaz). A collapse occurs when a team has a substantial lead and blows it late.

Some teams have large leads by default, like the 2003 Royals, and "collapse" only because the rest of the division starts playing better. When KC had a 7.5 game lead at the AS Break the second place Twins were under .500. But a real collapse is when a team is playing very well, has a big lead in the division, and then falters down the stretch.

I've seen a few August collapses.

For the sake of example, if memory serves, the 1969 Cubs had an 8 1/2 game in early August and is known as one of the historic chokers of all time after the 6-up-with-12-to-go Phillies of 1964. It seems like after Kenny Holtzman's no-hitter the '69 Cubs couldn't win anything. the Cubs finished 8 games behind the Mets, but beat the Mets on the last day of the season when no one cared. It could have been a 10-game difference.

The 1977 White Sox led KC by 7 1/2 games at the end of July. For much of the month, the Sox had the league's best record. They fell out of first place on Aug. 12 (the same date the 1967 and 1972 White Sox fell out of first, by the way). Beginning August with four tough losses in the Texas heat took the life out of the team. The Southside Hitmen finished 13 games behind KC, so they lost 20 1/2 games in the standings to the Royals. Of course, the 1977 Sox had pitching issues that don't exist on the 2005 Sox and couldn't keep on bludgeoning teams for the entire season. The team set a record for being involved in the fewest shutouts. They managed to hold the other team scoreless three times and succumbed to two shutouts themselves in September. I think the hitters were tired.

In early August, the 1983 Sox opened up a 6 game lead, took care of business and never looked back, winning the division by 20 games.

I've been watching Sox baseball for more than 30 years. I know it can go either way.

PeteWard
06-23-2005, 06:02 AM
:whiner:

I was just a baby at the time, but the Sox had a very nasty September collapse in my lifetime, playing against the dregs of the AL--and blew a four game lead in the last week to the Yankees. It was 1964 and I assume is often overlooked because the Phils had an even worse one. But it was bad enough.

elrod
06-23-2005, 12:06 PM
I've seen a few August collapses.

For the sake of example, if memory serves, the 1969 Cubs had an 8 1/2 game in early August and is known as one of the historic chokers of all time after the 6-up-with-12-to-go Phillies of 1964. It seems like after Kenny Holtzman's no-hitter the '69 Cubs couldn't win anything. the Cubs finished 8 games behind the Mets, but beat the Mets on the last day of the season when no one cared. It could have been a 10-game difference.

The 1977 White Sox led KC by 7 1/2 games at the end of July. For much of the month, the Sox had the league's best record. They fell out of first place on Aug. 12 (the same date the 1967 and 1972 White Sox fell out of first, by the way). Beginning August with four tough losses in the Texas heat took the life out of the team. The Southside Hitmen finished 13 games behind KC, so they lost 20 1/2 games in the standings to the Royals. Of course, the 1977 Sox had pitching issues that don't exist on the 2005 Sox and couldn't keep on bludgeoning teams for the entire season. The team set a record for being involved in the fewest shutouts. They managed to hold the other team scoreless three times and succumbed to two shutouts themselves in September. I think the hitters were tired.

In early August, the 1983 Sox opened up a 6 game lead, took care of business and never looked back, winning the division by 20 games.

I've been watching Sox baseball for more than 30 years. I know it can go either way.
The 1969 Cubs count as a collapse, true. I forgot that one (usually I think of the Miracle Mets and not the losers who blew the division).

The 1977 White Sox fell a lot too but it was a bit early to count as a total collapse. The Sox only led by about 5 games at the end of that great July. Plus, the Royals went 25-5 in September. It's hard to beat any team that does that.

TDog
06-23-2005, 12:39 PM
:whiner:

I was just a baby at the time, but the Sox had a very nasty September collapse in my lifetime, playing against the dregs of the AL--and blew a four game lead in the last week to the Yankees. It was 1964 and I assume is often overlooked because the Phils had an even worse one. But it was bad enough.

I don't think this is correct.

Lip talks about 1964 and certainly would have a better handle on this. I was a few years before I came to baseball. As I have always heard it, the Yankees finished the season with an 11-game winning streak (capping a 99-win season) while going 22-6 in September. The Sox, I understand, won 10 of their last 11 and finished one game out.

You may be thinking of 1967, when the Sox were playing the dregs of the AL -- KC and the Senators -- but they didn't start with a four-game lead. They lost their last five games, I believe, and finished in fourth, three games behind the Red Sox.

The Critic
06-23-2005, 01:47 PM
It sure as hell FELT like a collapse.:(:

I thought it felt like a plummet off a cliff onto jagged rocks in shark-infested waters.
The pessimist living inside me has a constant fear of what a second-half collapse could do to this franchise ( imagine the uproar from Cub fans, the Moron, BBTN and the rest.....:o: ), and the optimist inside me looks at the rotation and the rising batting averages and power numbers and feels pretty good about this team avoiding prolonged losing streaks.
Right now, the optimist is winning, hands down!
....but that damn pessimist always lurks....ruining my fun......:mad: