PDA

View Full Version : 2005 Sox vs. 2000 Sox


Mark
08-04-2005, 11:28 AM
According to the GM:

"That's one of the reasons we've tried to put together a more diverse club," Williams said. "One that can beat you in different ways, so that if you have a power outage, as we did in 2000, then you might be able to beat the other team with legs or bunts or situational hitting. On that mound, we'll be much stronger than we were. The two teams don't really have a parallel at all, really. We think we have a more well-rounded team."

Thoughts?

LVSoxFan
08-04-2005, 11:32 AM
Well that's certainly true, although you wouldn't know it as of late.

kevingrt
08-04-2005, 11:35 AM
Very true... 2000 beat you with just about runs and home runs and that was it. This team can beat you in many different facets of the game. The scary thing is as of late, we haven't beaten many teams minus the O's with any facet of the game.

DaveIsHere
08-04-2005, 11:37 AM
Well that's certainly true, although you wouldn't know it as of late.

Geez, we only lost two games.

southsidesoxfan1
08-04-2005, 11:41 AM
Three reasons why there's a big difference from 2000.

1. Beurhle
2. Garland
3. Garcia
Honorable mention: El-Duque

Rotation for the 2000 playoffs was decimated. Everyone was hurt, Baldwin, Eldred, and Sirotka especially. The game one starter was Parque and he wasn't healthy either, but the least hurt.

mdep524
08-04-2005, 11:44 AM
Rotation for the 2000 playoffs was decimated. Everyone was hurt, Baldwin, Eldred, and Sirotka especially. The game one starter was Parque and he wasn't healthy either, but the least hurt. It's funny how everybody says this, and it is true. Yet the reason the Sox went down so meekly vs. Seattle was their horridly cold offense. The starting pitching was actually very good in the three games.

southsidesoxfan1
08-04-2005, 11:50 AM
It's funny how everybody says this, and it is true. Yet the reason the Sox went down so meekly vs. Seattle was their horridly cold offense. The starting pitching was actually very good in the three games.

Agreed that the starting pitching was pretty effective and the bats went polar. Parque should have won that game one if it wasn't for the tinkerer. Who knows what would of happened if we one game one.
I'm glad this offense can manufacture runs, something that was non existent with the feast or famine 2000 squad. I guess I'm just stating the obivious, when saying that good pitching always beats good hitting. I think this is the staff that can do it as long as the stay healthy.

jdm2662
08-04-2005, 11:52 AM
The 2000 team averaged six runs a game. While the rotation was beat up when the playoffs started, it wasn't the reason why they lost, as already mentioned.

I'd have to say this year's team is much better. If you look at the 2000, you had guys that had career years (Valentin, Perry, Eldred), a superstar that had an awesome season after two off ones (Thomas), and a core of quality young players (Lee, Maggs, Konerko, and pretty much most of their bullpen and starters). This year's team is much more complete. The 2000 team pretty much lived off an awesome first half, and while still played good ball, they didn't exactly set the world on fire in the second half. It was a shame it turned out that way because I enjoyed that season, and it got me back to paying attention to baseball again.

Flight #24
08-04-2005, 11:59 AM
The 2000 team pretty much lived off an awesome first half, and while still played good ball, they didn't exactly set the world on fire in the second half. It was a shame it turned out that way because I enjoyed that season, and it got me back to paying attention to baseball again.

Well, so far (including last night), the Sox have followed up a 57-29 (.663) first half with a 12-8(.600) 2d half.

Yeah, it's a dropoff from the unreal pace they'd set initially, but their 2d half winning percentage is one that would net them 97 wins if they did it over a full season. Not exactly "coasting" down the stretch.

Rocklive99
08-04-2005, 12:06 PM
I like this year's pitching better, and this team has a little more experience whereas there were a lot young guys on that team.

SoxSpeed22
08-04-2005, 12:25 PM
Once we get back to playin' our style of ball, everything will be fine. I won't be surprised if there are a ton of "The sky is falling" tags lined up for today.

Lip Man 1
08-04-2005, 12:28 PM
The 2005 team's pitching is head and shoulders above the 2000 team particularly in depth. I personally think the field manager is better and overall the 2005 team has done a much better job of scoring runs in varied ways as opposed to just sitting back and swiniging for the three run homer. (Although this has been an issue the past few weeks.)

Lip

ChiSoxPatF
08-04-2005, 01:33 PM
This team seems far more like our '93 team than '00. '00 beat you with power and two starters that had career first halfs. After the All-star break Eldred and Baldwin went down and we really just began the tradition of coasting through on power that stretched until last year.

This year we're built around 3 solid starters and 2 adequate starters and a stellar bullpen. We have some power but its not our only means of production. Sounds alot like the '93 team if you ask me except this team maybe slightly better in depth, hitting, and experience.

Fake Chet Lemon
08-04-2005, 01:37 PM
Big difference in the dugout this year. I remember counting 10 instances where Pinella outmanaged Manuel in just those three games (I wish I had written them down:whiner: !). I feel much better with Ozzie in the dugout this year.

Our defense this year is vastly improved as well. The bullpen is better too.

LVSoxFan
08-04-2005, 01:39 PM
Geez, we only lost two games.

Yeah? How about that last series with Detroit here? We lost two games there, too.

Maybe it was just the "home" curse.

How about that series in KC, lowly KC, where I was at the last two games? We lost both of those too.