PDA

View Full Version : Reinsdorf calls 2005 White Sox "Lucky"...


WhiteSoxFan84
02-14-2006, 02:19 AM
The other, his chair pushed into the shadows of some overhanging fronds, slumped glumly, as though this was any other winter, any other meeting, any other blind stab at piecing together a World Series team.

"Do you realize how lucky we were?" Jerry Reinsdorf asked, not really hoping for an answer. The man was inconsolable.

It being almost Christmas, someone offered, "Yeah, well, somebody had to hit a home run after Graffanino's error, somebody had to double after the Josh Paul thing, and, geez, you swept the Astros."

The owner of the White Sox nodded dismissively, slid another inch in his chair and said, "Do you know how hard it's going to be to repeat?"


Linky (http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/la-sp-baseball14feb14,1,1631781.story?coll=la-headlines-sports)

Rest of the article is a preview of the 2006 season and things to look for.

Jjav829
02-14-2006, 07:42 AM
Uhh, is this a story? :?:

IlliniSox4Life
02-14-2006, 08:13 AM
Uhh, is this a story? :?:

Of course it is. JR hates his own team! He thinks they didn't deserve to win!

Seriously though, I don't get the big deal. Of course we were lucky. Of course it will be hard to repeat. Any winner is lucky and any winner has a difficult time repeating.

downstairs
02-14-2006, 08:15 AM
Lucky and good are not mutually exclusive.

The 2005 White Sox were one of the luckiest teams of all time.

They were also one of the best.

soxtalker
02-14-2006, 08:32 AM
This is a nice little nugget. It's not that there are any great implications from it. Thanks for the link.

Hangar18
02-14-2006, 08:38 AM
Lucky and good are not mutually exclusive.

The 2005 White Sox were one of the luckiest teams of all time.

They were also one of the best.


the 2005 White Sox were very lucky. I was going to start a thread on this, but figured it would turn into a Hangar-hates-the-sox thread, with Old Roman chiming in with his usual, and someone posting the "who cares we won the ws, you complain too much :cool: .
But seriously, im very glad the Chairman has been feeling candid lately, because I agree with him.
He wont be as misunderstood as he has been over the last 20 years.
Uncle Jerry realizes he caught lightning in a bottle, and after tasting from the Goblet of Champions, realizes how good it tastes. The moves the SOX made in the offseason, have STRENGTHENED themselves in order to try to repeat. If they dont, bless them for at least TRYING this time around.

How many offseasons went by, where these dummies thought strengthening one area meant weakening another area. This should really be the storyline. Again, kudos to the SOX.

santo=dorf
02-14-2006, 08:41 AM
Jerry is getting a writing gig at BP?

Fenway
02-14-2006, 09:21 AM
don't forget good teams make their own luck

in the post-season when breaks went Chicago's way they took advantage.

Not that there is anything wrong with that :D:

soxfan13
02-14-2006, 09:29 AM
Ask any team that has one a championship and I think 99.9999999999999 of them will say that an element of luck does play a part in winning the whole thing. Unless your the 85 Bears LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Super Bowl Shuffle"

PaulDrake
02-14-2006, 09:32 AM
the 2005 White Sox were very lucky. I was going to start a thread on this, but figured it would turn into a Hangar-hates-the-sox thread, with Old Roman chiming in with his usual, and someone posting the "who cares we won the ws, you complain too much :cool: .
But seriously, im very glad the Chairman has been feeling candid lately, because I agree with him.
He wont be as misunderstood as he has been over the last 20 years.
Uncle Jerry realizes he caught lightning in a bottle, and after tasting from the Goblet of Champions, realizes how good it tastes. The moves the SOX made in the offseason, have STRENGTHENED themselves in order to try to repeat. If they dont, bless them for at least TRYING this time around.

How many offseasons went by, where these dummies thought strengthening one area meant weakening another area. This should really be the storyline. Again, kudos to the SOX. Yes indeed they were a lucky team. However, I could point to numerous incidents since I've been following the Sox where the fates seemed to conspire against them. It's a big reason why I doubted I'd live long enough to see them actually win a World Series. So finally we caught some breaks, and then capitalized on them in the biggest way possible. About time I say. Also, don't interpret this as a bash Hanger reply. None of us here are perfect and for the most part you're quite all right with me. I'd love to see the "trophy".

mccoydp
02-14-2006, 09:41 AM
Truly great teams like the 2005 White Sox always have a little luck on their side. The difference between a winner and a loser sometimes comes down to who can better take advantage of lucky situations when so presented.

soxfan13
02-14-2006, 09:41 AM
Yes indeed they were a lucky team. However, I could point to numerous incidents since I've been following the Sox where the fates seemed to conspire against them. It's a big reason why I doubted I'd live long enough to see them actually win a World Series. So finally we caught some breaks, and then capitalized on them in the biggest way possible. About time I say. Also, don't interpret this as a bash Hanger reply. None of us here are perfect and for the most part you're quite all right with me. I'd love to see the "trophy".
\
Exactly I am sooooooo tired of arguing with cub fans at the local bar about "Yeah the Sox got some breaks but the Sox were good enough to take advantage of the breaks."

ondafarm
02-14-2006, 10:06 AM
Depending on his/her commitment, any owner can put their team in position to contend for the playoffs. After that there is a certain amount of luck involved.

You can build a good team, you can't guarentee a championship.

soxinem1
02-14-2006, 10:31 AM
Depending on his/her commitment, any owner can put their team in position to contend for the playoffs. After that there is a certain amount of luck involved.

You can build a good team, you can't guarentee a championship.

I think perseverance is more accurate to use in this case. Since 2001, we had some unbelievable games on the West Coast. Was it bad luck? Once in awhile maybe, but I think things tend to work psychologically in these instances more than we believe.

We couldn't beat anyone in the AL West no matter how bad we they were playing at the time for years, especially Oakland. Do you think the players are not aware of that before they even take the trip to play them? You bet they are.

This game today is more advanced than ever before, so teams know long before they play you how bad you play on the West Coast, how often you come back when trailing after eight innings, how good you are when scoring first, or how invincible you are in close games.

So while good luck will win you a few here and there, bad luck usually evens the score a bit. I really think mentality is more of an issue, not luck.

TaylorStSox
02-14-2006, 11:20 AM
don't forget good teams make their own luck

in the post-season when breaks went Chicago's way they took advantage.

Not that there is anything wrong with that :D:

Well said. Every WS champion is lucky. The best team doesn't always win in baseball. If that were the case, you'd see more dynasty teams. How many have their been in the last 30 years? The A's, Reds and Yankees?

ondafarm
02-14-2006, 11:21 AM
I think perseverance is more accurate to use in this case. Since 2001, we had some unbelievable games on the West Coast. Was it bad luck? Once in awhile maybe, but I think things tend to work psychologically in these instances more than we believe.

We couldn't beat anyone in the AL West no matter how bad we they were playing at the time for years, especially Oakland. Do you think the players are not aware of that before they even take the trip to play them? You bet they are.

This game today is more advanced than ever before, so teams know long before they play you how bad you play on the West Coast, how often you come back when trailing after eight innings, how good you are when scoring first, or how invincible you are in close games.

So while good luck will win you a few here and there, bad luck usually evens the score a bit. I really think mentality is more of an issue, not luck.

I think you assume too much. Most players recall parks and individual pitchers a lot more than they are aware of team records for and against. I don't think Jermaine Dye had any worries at all about playing in McAfee in 2005 or 2006. Considering how many games he'd played there in previous years, that is.

Most guys recall how well they see the ball at certain parks and perhaps a bit about the conditions, as in hard dirt in Anaheim, lots of fould ground in Oakland, etc. Other than that, most of what you recall is player versus player stuff, what this guys breaking stuff looks like, how fast his fastball is, how well you do against him, etc.

As for historically how your team has played against a particular team or how likely you are to rally in the eigth, I can say, I never worried about that. I doubt the White Sox do either.

Besides, the White Sox took more series on the West coast last year than they had in this century. They beat the Padres, the Angels and the A's in 3 or 2 game series.

soxinem1
02-14-2006, 12:11 PM
I think you assume too much. Most players recall parks and individual pitchers a lot more than they are aware of team records for and against. I don't think Jermaine Dye had any worries at all about playing in McAfee in 2005 or 2006. Considering how many games he'd played there in previous years, that is.

Most guys recall how well they see the ball at certain parks and perhaps a bit about the conditions, as in hard dirt in Anaheim, lots of fould ground in Oakland, etc. Other than that, most of what you recall is player versus player stuff, what this guys breaking stuff looks like, how fast his fastball is, how well you do against him, etc.

As for historically how your team has played against a particular team or how likely you are to rally in the eigth, I can say, I never worried about that. I doubt the White Sox do either.

Besides, the White Sox took more series on the West coast last year than they had in this century. They beat the Padres, the Angels and the A's in 3 or 2 game series.

What is your point? I did not assume anything. What I stated was true. We had a lot of problems on the west coast since 2001. We didn't exactly add a whole new team in 2005, most of the 2004 team was still there. You have stated that a player looks to his prior performance in a particular stadium or certain pitchers. How is this any different than my point? If Frank THomas goes up to the plate to face Jeff Nelson, who he's like 2 for 31 in his career against, do you think that is not in the back of his mind when he goes up there? Sure it is. In fact, last year Guillen made several references to past west coast road trips before the team started any of the series.

Teams may catch breaks, but they have to make their own luck. It is psychological. If a team believes that the 7th inning and beyond is their time, after they do it enough, and other teams experience it enough, it is more of a psychological factor than luck. Luck is for gamblers, winning is for believers.

The Critic
02-14-2006, 12:12 PM
Like I said when all those "controversial plays" happened:
It's not the break you get, it's what you DO with the break you get.

All championship teams get some luck here and there. But they still had to win the games. 99 regular-season wins and 11-1 in the postseason wasn't all luck.

ondafarm
02-14-2006, 01:18 PM
You have stated that a player looks to his prior performance in a particular stadium or certain pitchers. How is this any different than my point? If Frank THomas goes up to the plate to face Jeff Nelson, who he's like 2 for 31 in his career against, do you think that is not in the back of his mind when he goes up there? Sure it is.
.

Because when Frank Thomas plays against the White Sox this season, his whole attitude will not be, "We own these guys." It will be much more of the mindset, "I've always hit well here" or "Let's see how I do against these guys who I used to watch a lot."

Frank Thomas has hit exceptionally well in Camden Yards, his attitude there has to be, "I see the ball well in this park" and not "I could hit Cy Young if he wore an Orioles uni."

In fact, last year Guillen made several references to past west coast road trips before the team started any of the series.
.

Guillen was reacting to the media, who were blabbering about a west-coast curse. Typical media garbage.

JohnBasedowYoda
02-14-2006, 01:20 PM
don't forget good teams make their own luck

in the post-season when breaks went Chicago's way they took advantage.

Not that there is anything wrong with that :D:

Smartest comment on this thread yet.

my5thbench
02-14-2006, 02:20 PM
I think Jerry suspects that "catching lightning in a bottle" might have occur-

red when he hired Kenny Williams & Ozzie Guillen. Methinks that those two

characters may just know what the heck that they are doing!

soxinem1
02-14-2006, 02:23 PM
Because when Frank Thomas plays against the White Sox this season, his whole attitude will not be, "We own these guys." It will be much more of the mindset, "I've always hit well here" or "Let's see how I do against these guys who I used to watch a lot."

Frank Thomas has hit exceptionally well in Camden Yards, his attitude there has to be, "I see the ball well in this park" and not "I could hit Cy Young if he wore an Orioles uni."



Guillen was reacting to the media, who were blabbering about a west-coast curse. Typical media garbage.


Okay, I see your point in that respect, but that formula often is incorrect, because if a player hits well in a particular park, it is more likely because of the pitchers he hits well against. When Tony Clark was picked up by the Red Sox a few years ago, many thought he would be a total steal because he had something like a .340 average lifetime in Fenway. With the BoSox he barely hit .200. That totally threw that thought out of whack.

In the 80's the Orioles had an INF named Len Sakata. Before 1983, Sakata couldn't buy a hit of the White Sox. In 1983 Floyd Bannister joined the team, and old Len hit him quite well. So what do you think happened when Floyd faced him the first time in a run scoring situation? Sakata nailed a hard liner for a hit.

Which again leads me back to my original point. I think mindset means more than luck in the long run. You have to believe in the cause, which is a reason why the 2005 White Sox were so sucessful, while teams that still think they can have an All-Star at every position fall short.

kevin57
02-14-2006, 02:34 PM
Did the Sox catch some lucky breaks (e.g., AJ's dropped third)? Yeah.

As many have said, you still have to take advantage of those breaks. The Sox did, time after time.

I also do not look upon errors (e.g., Graffinino's) as a "lucky break." If the other guys commit errors and you don't, that's called playing better than the other guys.

lostletters
02-14-2006, 05:01 PM
Did the Sox catch some lucky breaks (e.g., AJ's dropped third)? Yeah.

As many have said, you still have to take advantage of those breaks. The Sox did, time after time.

I also do not look upon errors (e.g., Graffinino's) as a "lucky break." If the other guys commit errors and you don't, that's called playing better than the other guys.

I remember Hawk, Farmer, and tons of other white sox "personalities" saying that great teams, championship teams, are the ones that do not beat themselves. It is pretty clear the White Sox were a team that rarely beat themselves, unless they were playing Oakland, which it always seems bad things happen. In fact if anything I can say about the Manuel era of the White Sox is the fact that the Sox beat themselves repeatedly.

slavko
02-14-2006, 05:25 PM
I remember Hawk, Farmer, and tons of other white sox "personalities" saying that great teams, championship teams, are the ones that do not beat themselves. It is pretty clear the White Sox were a team that rarely beat themselves, unless they were playing Oakland, which it always seems bad things happen. In fact if anything I can say about the Manuel era of the White Sox is the fact that the Sox beat themselves repeatedly.

(Seems like) In 2000 they never blew a lead. In 2001 they always blew a lead. Luck? It's in how good your bullpen is more often than not.

ondafarm
02-15-2006, 03:58 PM
In fact if anything I can say about the Manuel era of the White Sox is the fact that the Sox beat themselves repeatedly.

Jerry Manuel could have managed the 1927 Yankees to a .500 record.

flo-B-flo
02-15-2006, 10:09 PM
They got some breaks. They took advantage. They led all year. They were the best team in the post-season. They got the ring. This is this year. It will be different. It will be tough. I like my chances.