PDA

View Full Version : Another Poster Child nominee for the Terminally Confused


Lip Man 1
09-16-2005, 03:39 PM
Johnny:

Interesting in that in 3 of the 4 Sox instances you quoted the team with the better record down the stretch won the head to head playoff meeting and the Orioles 16-9 record wasn't chopped liver....hmmmm.

Also one other point. Your listing of teams closing since 2000 makes one point very clear. If you want to do well in the playoffs you at least have to have a 'winning' record down the stretch. The Yanks from 2000 seem to be the exception to the rule but as we discussed that was a veteran team, playoff tested already with a series title. They did know how to 'turn it on an off...' The Sox September record right now is 8-6. Something to keep an eye on.

Lip

cheeses_h_rice
09-16-2005, 04:00 PM
Lip, I'm with PHG or whoever moved your post here.

Momentum is overrated as a swing factor in how teams do in the playoffs. Obviously, if you're injury ravaged and losing a lot of games because your lineup simply isn't the same as it was when you were winning, that's going to lead to your team not doing well in the postseason. But the fact of the matter is, the Sox are mostly healthy, or at least as healthy as their potential opponents, and they can turn their "funk" (I put quotes around that because they're not playing horribly, and it's only Cleveland's torrid pace that's made this a close race) around in just one game. They have all the pieces, now they just need to go out and execute. Hell, they could go 19-8 the rest of the year and still stink it up in the playoffs. Who knows.

kittle42
09-16-2005, 04:05 PM
Lip, I'm with PHG or whoever moved your post here.

Momentum is overrated as a swing factor in how teams do in the playoffs.

It's as overrated as "team chemistry" apparently.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-16-2005, 04:08 PM
Lip needs to leave the statistical analysis to people who have a ****ing clue. His goofy comments about what the numbers mean make the propellerheads at Baseball Prospectus look like ****ing geniuses by comparison.

Scary... truly scary...

:o:

Johnny Mostil
09-16-2005, 04:08 PM
Johnny:

Interesting in that in 3 of the 4 Sox instances you quoted the team with the better record down the stretch won the head to head playoff meeting and the Orioles 16-9 record wasn't chopped liver....hmmmm.

Also one other point. Your listing of teams closing since 2000 makes one point very clear. If you want to do well in the playoffs you at least have to have a 'winning' record down the stretch. The Yanks from 2000 seem to be the exception to the rule but as we discussed that was a veteran team, playoff tested already with a series title. They did know how to 'turn it on an off...' The Sox September record right now is 8-6. Something to keep an eye on.

Lip

No doubt it's better to win games--at any time of the season--than to lose them. Still, I lean more toward "everybody is 0-0 so what does it matter" when the postseason begins. The Jays in '93 were defending champs and had a better record than the Sox over 162 games, not just the last 25. Maybe one could say their "momentum" in their last 25 carried them to victory in the first two games of the ALCS, but that was offset quickly enough. The greater White Sox "momentum" in '83 resulted in one win during the ALCS.

FWIW, http://baseball-reference.com/games/streaks.cgi?games=25&year=ALL&SHOW=TOT&includes=end_year&start_game_val=10&end_game_val=135&teams=ALL&orderby=wins&submit=Find+Streaks has the record for the last 25 games for every team in every year. Among those reaching the postseason, teams that do better in the last 25 appear to do better than the others, but I'm guessing (without looking closely at this) that's because they were better teams, period, usually as proven over the whole season schedule.

I suppose one way to look at "momentum" is to compare the records of all playoff teams--not just the four most recent White Sox postseason appearances--over the last n games with those of their opponents. You note that in three of the four examples I cite the team with the better record beat the White Sox in the post season. True enough, but
--in 2004 the Red Sox beat the Yankees and the Cardinals (not among the best finishers) beat the Astros
--in 2003 the Marlins beat the better-finishing Yankees and the Yankees beat the better finishing Twins
--in 2002 the Angels beat the better-finishing Yankees and the better-finishing Giants (and the Twins, I just noticed, beat the better-finishing Yankees)
--in 2001 the Diamondbacks (only 14-11 in their last 25) beat the better finishing Cardinals, Braves, and Yankees, and the Yankees beat the better-finishing Mariners
--in 2000 the Yankees beat the better finishing Athletics, Mariners, and Mets.

There may be still more examples of worse-finishing teams beating better-finishing teams in the past five postseasons; in the past five years. I haven't checked the closing records of all playoff teams in that time. Maybe I'll look at this sometime over the winter--or when there aren't games remaining to be played and it doesn't hurt my head so much . . .

Hangar18
09-16-2005, 04:13 PM
Id rather enter the playoffs ON A ROLL than enter the playoffs ON A SKID.

And Id much rather play the April Indians instead of the September Indians.
Those Royals better Rise Up like they did against us .....

PaleHoseGeorge
09-16-2005, 04:17 PM
Id rather enter the playoffs ON A ROLL than enter the playoffs ON A SKID.

That's funny, Hangar. I would rather EXIT the playoffs ON A ROLL!

You are too much.

:roflmao:

Unregistered
09-16-2005, 04:18 PM
Those Royals better Rise Up like they did against us .....
I can guarantee that the Royals won't take 2 of 3 from the Indians. It just won't happen.

StillMissOzzie
09-16-2005, 04:37 PM
That's funny, Hangar. I would rather EXIT the playoffs ON A ROLL!

You are too much.

:roflmao:

True dat, but you've gotta get in first...

SMO
:gulp:

PaleHoseGeorge
09-16-2005, 04:39 PM
True dat, but you've gotta get in first...



Too bad for Hangar he wasn't talking about getting in first. He was talking about getting in with style (i.e. "on a roll")

Amusing. Pathetic, too, but amusing.
:cool:

kittle42
09-16-2005, 04:47 PM
Too bad for Hangar he wasn't talking about getting in first. He was talking about getting in with style (i.e. "on a roll")

Amusing. Pathetic, too, but amusing.
:cool:

I understand what both sides are saying, I guess.

PHG, I agree with you that I don't give two craps how they get in - just that they do - and I agree with you that they will.

That being said, and this has nothing to do with winning and losing in terms of Ws and Ls, the Sox have been generally playing sloppy ball recently, even in some of the games they have won. I don't care whether they go into the playoffs winning their last 10 or losing their last 10 - but I do want them to go in playing sound baseball, because that's what they did in the first half and that is what they need, I think, to greatly increase their chances of being successful, as they have shown us. I hope I was making sense here.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-16-2005, 04:52 PM
That being said, and this has nothing to do with winning and losing in terms of Ws and Ls, the Sox have been generally playing sloppy ball recently, even in some of the games they have won. I don't care whether they go into the playoffs winning their last 10 or losing their last 10 - but I do want them to go in playing sound baseball, because that's what they did in the first half and that is what they need, I think, to greatly increase their chances of being successful, as they have shown us. I hope I was making sense here.

If you mean the Sox need to play better baseball, sure we all agree that's the critical factor. It's pretty much been the critical factor for six months now. In fact, to date, nobody else in the league has played better baseball the past six months than the Chicago White Sox. That's why we have 4.5 game lead on the hottest team in baseball AND first dibs on the wild card spot, too.

But the terminally confused are focused solely on how the Sox ARRIVED at this point and turning themselves inside out with all the "what if" scenarios that land the Sox out of the playoffs. Lip even uses the "embarrass" word as though crapping his own pants is somehow embarrassing to the rest of us.

Sorry. Fish ain't biting.

:cool:

kittle42
09-16-2005, 05:03 PM
If you mean the Sox need to play better baseball, sure we all agree that's the critical factor. It's pretty much been the critical factor for six months now. In fact, to date, nobody else in the league has played better baseball the past six months than the Chicago White Sox. That's why we have 4.5 game lead on the hottest team in baseball AND first dibs on the wild card spot, too.

But the terminally confused are focused solely on how the Sox ARRIVED at this point and turning themselves inside out with all the "what if" scenarios that land the Sox out of the playoffs. Lip even uses the "embarrass" word as though crapping his own pants is somehow embarrassing to the rest of us.

Sorry. Fish ain't biting.

:cool:

I wasn't trying to bait you...just trying to clarify the difference between the two "sides" of the issue, if you will, which you did.

I understand your focus on the grind of a long season and the inevitable ups and downs, as well. I think one of the things that increases people's frustration is the sports world's concentration of the end of the season in isolation from the rest of it. This is not particular to baseball, either, as you often see, in college sports, a team's loss at the end of the year meaning much more than their loss in, say, the first game (e.g. FSU goes 11-1; OSU goes 11-1, but OSU gets ranked higher because their loss was in the first game and they won their last 11 - the whole what have you done for me lately thing). This is the line of thought most people tend to have because it is what the media feeds them, and because recency, psychologically, is what most people have come to mind first.

Anyway, blah, blah, and I am thankful that the Sox played so well for 6 months to be able to have the cushion to weather this storm now. We just all need this storm to stop!

Lip Man 1
09-16-2005, 06:38 PM
George:

I admit to being terminally confused as well as a gutless coward. Like I said doesn't bother me an iota. Being a Sox fan for 45 years does that to you.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
09-16-2005, 06:55 PM
George:

I admit to being terminally confused as well as a gutless coward. Like I said doesn't bother me an iota. Being a Sox fan for 45 years does that to you.

Lip

There are plenty of Sox Fans posting here and elsewhere who would take great umbrage that whatever psychosis you're admitting to is somehow normal for Sox Fans to exhibit simply because you do.

Don't tag us with your problems.

:o:

Lip Man 1
09-16-2005, 07:12 PM
George:

My comment was based on my experiences with the franchise over 45 years. Not trying to bring anyone else into this at all.

People react differently to things. My feelings on the team are mine, yours are yours and so on. I wasn't trying to make a broad generality. That wouldn't be fair to the other fans.

Lip

TornLabrum
09-16-2005, 07:31 PM
I'm going to be very interested in seeing how these guys do against the Twinkies. Our next 10 games are against them and the 'Toons. A choke in these games really wouldn't bode well for this club as they head for the playoffs. If their sphincter muscles are tight now, I dread seeing what condition they'll be in come October.

SouthSide_HitMen
09-16-2005, 08:59 PM
I'm going to be very interested in seeing how these guys do against the Twinkies. Our next 10 games are against them and the 'Toons. A choke in these games really wouldn't bode well for this club as they head for the playoffs. If their sphincter muscles are tight now, I dread seeing what condition they'll be in come October.

What is the origin of the pejorative "Toons" and what does it refer to (The cartoon of Chief Wahoo)? I've never heard it except on this website.

Huisj
09-16-2005, 10:06 PM
I'm noticing a lot of trouble lately with people feeling that everyone has to react to everything that happens in the exact same way. Some people think that everyone should react with great elation over every win and great agony over every loss, and some people feel that everyone should just kind of take it easy and relax regardless of what happens on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis. What people seem to have trouble with is seeing that it's ok to have different reactions to the same thing. If everyone was exactly the same, the world would be pretty darn boring.

How about a bad attempt at an analogy, because I love analogies . . .

Say me and my friend go to a nice restaurant and each order a meal. My friend really likes his, but I don't really care for mine so much. Neither of us is wrong for either liking or disliking our meal; rather, we just have different tastes.

Someone isn't right or wrong for expressing displeasure or not expressing displeasure over the way the sox are playing right now. Different people just react differently to things than others.

If the sox lose a game, some fans become visibly upset and their blood pressure increases, some say "darn it" and quietly go about the rest of their evening wishing they'd won, some shrug and say "well, go get 'em next time", and some say "it's ok because we've won a lot this year and it doesn't affect the rest of my life anyway." Is one of these responses the "right" one? After years of all these reactions being ok, is there suddenly only one way to be a sox fan?