MRKARNO
10-03-2005, 08:09 PM
I haven't seen this comparison made anywhere yet, so I'll claim to be the first to have made it.
The 2005 Red Sox are very much like the 2000 Chicago White Sox.
Let's start with the keys to the team. The 2005 Red Sox have Manny and Ortiz. The 2000 White Sox had Frank and Magglio. Manny and Ortiz were a tiny bit better in '05 than Frank and Maggs, but the different is not very signficant.
They both had very balanced lineups that led their leagues in runs scored by a significant margin; the 00 WSox with 978 and the 05 RSox with 900. Teams were scoring more in general in 2000, so that accounts for some of the difference on that part.
The front four of the two teams were also very similar. One starter who wasnt bad (Wakefield and Sirotka), and three others that were mediocre at best. Neither team could really call starting pitching it's strong point, not by any stretch. The one difference between the two are the ages of the pitchers, but I don't see that as being a very significant difference. The 00 WSox actually pitched fairly well in the 2000 ALDS.
The 2000 White Sox probably had one more good bullpen arm than the 05 Red Sox, just enough to call it a decent bullpen, whereas the Red Sox bullpen has been pretty bad.
Neither team was exactly known for its defensive prowess.
Both teams won 95 games.
But what is the point? The 2000 White Sox was a good team and the 2005 Red Sox is a good team, but if the 2000 White Sox can be swept away in the playoffs, so can the 2005 Red Sox. I'm not saying that it will happen, but I think the 2000 White Sox are the perfect example of how a team like the Red Sox can be beat. Bats can go relatively cold for a three or four game stretch and the Red Sox arent exactly the best equipped team to handle that.
The 2005 Red Sox are very much like the 2000 Chicago White Sox.
Let's start with the keys to the team. The 2005 Red Sox have Manny and Ortiz. The 2000 White Sox had Frank and Magglio. Manny and Ortiz were a tiny bit better in '05 than Frank and Maggs, but the different is not very signficant.
They both had very balanced lineups that led their leagues in runs scored by a significant margin; the 00 WSox with 978 and the 05 RSox with 900. Teams were scoring more in general in 2000, so that accounts for some of the difference on that part.
The front four of the two teams were also very similar. One starter who wasnt bad (Wakefield and Sirotka), and three others that were mediocre at best. Neither team could really call starting pitching it's strong point, not by any stretch. The one difference between the two are the ages of the pitchers, but I don't see that as being a very significant difference. The 00 WSox actually pitched fairly well in the 2000 ALDS.
The 2000 White Sox probably had one more good bullpen arm than the 05 Red Sox, just enough to call it a decent bullpen, whereas the Red Sox bullpen has been pretty bad.
Neither team was exactly known for its defensive prowess.
Both teams won 95 games.
But what is the point? The 2000 White Sox was a good team and the 2005 Red Sox is a good team, but if the 2000 White Sox can be swept away in the playoffs, so can the 2005 Red Sox. I'm not saying that it will happen, but I think the 2000 White Sox are the perfect example of how a team like the Red Sox can be beat. Bats can go relatively cold for a three or four game stretch and the Red Sox arent exactly the best equipped team to handle that.