PDA

View Full Version : Tigers vs. White Sox


Tiger23
07-16-2006, 07:25 PM
The box at the bottom says that I can start threads so here I go.

This is the biggest series of the year thus far from this end obviously, and also the biggest series in the short history of Comerica Park. Both teams have an off day tomorrow, which I personally can't stand as a fan, but it seems they will both welcome it with open arms after playing so sloppy today.

Looking at the pitching matchups, I would have to say Detroit has the slight advantage in the first two with Robertson facing Garland, and Bonderman facing Vasquez. I hope the Tigers take both of them as Rogers will face Contreras on Thursday, and the way Kenny has been pitching the White Sox lineup might eat him alive.

I won't be around posting once the series starts no matter who is winning as that could create problems (and even if wanted to I will be at the second two games anyway), but I figured there was plenty of time to discuss it before it actually starts.

cbotnyse
07-16-2006, 07:36 PM
Detroit has no slight advantage. You will be beat this week. Badly. I cant wait to see the Sox sweep the Tigers at home and all of the Tiger fans start to :whiner: .

Bring it on! :duel:

MrRoboto83
07-16-2006, 07:42 PM
Should be a fun series to watch, I am looking forward to it. Garland by the way is pitching much better than those numbers state, so beware.

Tiger23
07-16-2006, 07:51 PM
Should be a fun series to watch, I am looking forward to it. Garland by the way is pitching much better than those numbers state, so beware.

Yeah, I really think the first game is a wash as far as the pitching matchup. Garland has been pitching better, and Robertson's pitching has gotten a little bit worse in his last few outings. But I do think Bonderman has the edge over Vasquez, which doesn't always mean anything once the game starts.

QCIASOXFAN
07-16-2006, 07:58 PM
Detroit has no slight advantage. You will be beat this week. Badly. I cant wait to see the Sox sweep the Tigers at home and all of the Tiger fans start to :whiner: .

Bring it on! :duel:I agree, Your not playing K.C. anymore buddy, time for them to play a real team that doesn't roll over like a bunch of dogs.

patbooyah
07-16-2006, 08:04 PM
Yeah, I really think the first game is a wash as far as the pitching matchup. Garland has been pitching better, and Robertson's pitching has gotten a little bit worse in his last few outings. But I do think Bonderman has the edge over Vasquez, which doesn't always mean anything once the game starts.

i agree with you about bonderman. he is the one pitcher on the tigers i don't want to face.

batmanZoSo
07-16-2006, 09:56 PM
Unless the Sox just suddenly wake up I don't have faith that they'll beat anybody right now after getting swept in the Bronx. Of course, this is baseball and one game to the next is often a world of difference. The good thing is they've handled the Tigers pretty well this year and they tend to step it up against division rivals. It's a big series and realistically it means a lot more to us than it does them. But from their standpoint, they have a lot to prove.

Oblong
07-16-2006, 10:00 PM
Detroit will sweep. That's why we lost today. Winning 7 in a row is tough but 6 out of 7 is no big deal.

Who wants to wager a week's signature? I'll say Detroit takes 2 of 3 against any of you. If I win then I get to decide your signature line for a week's time. If Detroit sweeps then it's until Chicago takes the division lead? If Detroit gets swept then I will let you pick mine until September?

I'm very excited for this. Most anticipated series since 1991 to be honest. Back then we were tied wtih Toronto in late August for first.

0o0o0
07-16-2006, 11:12 PM
Detroit will sweep. That's why we lost today. Winning 7 in a row is tough but 6 out of 7 is no big deal.

Who wants to wager a week's signature? I'll say Detroit takes 2 of 3 against any of you. If I win then I get to decide your signature line for a week's time. If Detroit sweeps then it's until Chicago takes the division lead? If Detroit gets swept then I will let you pick mine until September?

I'm very excited for this. Most anticipated series since 1991 to be honest. Back then we were tied wtih Toronto in late August for first.

:?: :o: If Detroit sweeps, I will give you my car. If they win 2 of 3, 2/3 of my car. When the Sox take the series, you don't have to give me anything.

Mr. White Sox
07-16-2006, 11:25 PM
I think the White Sox take Game 1, despite Garland's bulging ERA and Robertson's previous mastery of the Sox. Why? I just think it happens.

Game 2 goes to the Tigers. I have no confidence in Vazquez at this point, especially against a team with a few power hitters and a record over .500

Game 3 is a tossup. This will sound stupid, but whichever team makes the most mistakes will lose. I think Rogers and Contreras will duel admirably but it will come down to the bullpens and defense.

QCIASOXFAN
07-16-2006, 11:32 PM
Detroit will sweep. That's why we lost today. Winning 7 in a row is tough but 6 out of 7 is no big deal.

Who wants to wager a week's signature? I'll say Detroit takes 2 of 3 against any of you. If I win then I get to decide your signature line for a week's time. If Detroit sweeps then it's until Chicago takes the division lead? If Detroit gets swept then I will let you pick mine until September?

I'm very excited for this. Most anticipated series since 1991 to be honest. Back then we were tied wtih Toronto in late August for first.Count me in!

oeo
07-17-2006, 12:07 AM
Detroit will sweep. That's why we lost today. Winning 7 in a row is tough but 6 out of 7 is no big deal.

Who wants to wager a week's signature? I'll say Detroit takes 2 of 3 against any of you. If I win then I get to decide your signature line for a week's time. If Detroit sweeps then it's until Chicago takes the division lead? If Detroit gets swept then I will let you pick mine until September?

I'm very excited for this. Most anticipated series since 1991 to be honest. Back then we were tied wtih Toronto in late August for first.
That's a pretty dumb reason to be confident. You could have said, the Sox aren't playing well right now, and we are. But you lost so you could sweep the Sox...okay, I'm sure that was the goal. :rolleyes:

Good luck, though.

soxfanreggie
07-17-2006, 01:20 AM
You never made clear what happens if the Sox take 2 of 3. I'm guessing that person gets your sig line for a weeks times. Also, if you make this bet, are you only making it with one person or multiple people?

SouthSoxFan
07-17-2006, 01:28 AM
Detroit will sweep. That's why we lost today. Winning 7 in a row is tough but 6 out of 7 is no big deal.

Who wants to wager a week's signature? I'll say Detroit takes 2 of 3 against any of you.

Losing confidence so quickly... :wink:

slobes
07-17-2006, 06:54 AM
I'm expecting another one of Garland's 9 inning, no runs, 4 hit masterpiece from last year.

Thome25
07-17-2006, 07:59 AM
I'm a die hard Sox fan but, I have to be honest, I'm worried about the pitching matchups in the first two games of this series.

Garland has pretty much been Dr. Jekyll/ Mr. Hyde his entire career thus far. I'm not sure which Garland will show up for game 1.

Vazquez has been OK for a #5 starter but, that doesn't say much because he's been basically getting lit up all season long. Hopefully he has a great game but, I'm thinking not so much.

Maybe I should throw game 3 in there too. I think It'll be a slugfest because Contreras just lost his first game and hasn't been his usual dominant self as of late.

I love the SOX but I'd have to say I don't like our chances in this series with the way we've been playing lately. Plus, the pitching matchups aren't in our favor either. I'm a little nervous can you tell?

I hope to God we go in there and take 2 out of 3. Here's to meaningful baseball in July. :gulp: GO WHITE SOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kraut83
07-17-2006, 08:03 AM
I agree that Wednesday vs. Bonderman is going to be the toughest game of the series. From what I saw, the Tigers were pretty sloppy against the Royals, and could have just as easily lost 3 of 4 as they won them. Hopefully our starters settle down, and the bats wake up with RISP.

Deuce
07-17-2006, 08:04 AM
This series is important, but not crucial. There are still many more games against Detroit later in the year, plus half a season to finish.

Timmy D's
07-17-2006, 08:24 AM
I am honestly expecting a White Sox sweep. That's right, -1.5, heading back home for mullet night!! Which incidently the weather looks lovely for this coming weekend, as my main man Taft pointed out back into the lower 80's. This team is pizzed off, and ready to tear someones head off. Sorry lil d it's time to play some one other than KC or Tampa for a while now.:gulp:

Baby Fisk
07-17-2006, 09:09 AM
Sox take 2 of 3.

Dan Mega
07-17-2006, 09:15 AM
Sox take 2 of 3.

Amen.

jenn2080
07-17-2006, 09:19 AM
This series is important, but not crucial. There are still many more games against Detroit later in the year, plus half a season to finish.


This series is pretty important. And yes there are many games left, but are we going to say that all the way to Sept? I am not freaking out and throwing the towel in, but come on lets be realistic.

TornLabrum
07-17-2006, 09:21 AM
This series is pretty important. And yes there are many games left, but are we going to say that all the way to Sept? I am not freaking out and throwing the towel in, but come on lets be realistic.

Okay, let's be realistic. The season has two and a half months to go. In That's two and a half times loger than the time from September 1-October 1.

jenn2080
07-17-2006, 09:28 AM
Okay, let's be realistic. The season has two and a half months to go. In That's two and a half times loger than the time from September 1-October 1.

And I am completely aware of that and like I said I am not sitting here taking my Sox down counting the season over. We are a kick ass team with a stellar record. we got a around great line up, but there we have just not been playing up to par. our pitching hasnt been great and our ability to move runners in scoring position has not been the greatest. Like I said I am no where near ready to jump off a cliff cuz we are going through a rough patch but our pitching has had alot of issues now for most of the year other then Jose. So ya I do think this Detroit series is a bit bigger then others since we would gain some ground by winning them. We are dominating against Detroit right now and I would like to keep it that way.

jenn2080
07-17-2006, 09:28 AM
wow i dont know what happened here but this was posted 3 times. Can the first 2 be removed?

AuroraSoxFan
07-17-2006, 09:40 AM
Our squad is a tough one to beat. We had the tyung run at the plate Sunday and on 3rd Friday vs the Yanks. So we were in 2 games till the final out despite playing like complete dog crap. With that, I believe a sweep in DET is possible. But only if we get some better results from our starting hurlers.

viagracat
07-17-2006, 10:16 AM
Always beware the pissed-off team. The Sox should be pissed off after stinking up Yankee Stadium over the weekend. Everyone knows they're much better that the way they played there. They're going to go to Detroit focused, highly determined and ready. These are not the Kansas City Royals. I think the Sox will take 2 out of 3 but even if I'm wrong, Detroit will never be safe. There are no must-win games in July.

CHISOXFAN13
07-17-2006, 10:26 AM
Detroit will sweep. That's why we lost today. Winning 7 in a row is tough but 6 out of 7 is no big deal.

Who wants to wager a week's signature? I'll say Detroit takes 2 of 3 against any of you. If I win then I get to decide your signature line for a week's time. If Detroit sweeps then it's until Chicago takes the division lead? If Detroit gets swept then I will let you pick mine until September?

I'm very excited for this. Most anticipated series since 1991 to be honest. Back then we were tied wtih Toronto in late August for first.

Count me in as one of those who was impressed with Detroit's pitching mastery against a pathetic Royals lineup.

If the Tigers continue to pitch and play defense like they did in the previous four games, the Sox will win at least 2.

voodoochile
07-17-2006, 10:42 AM
wow i dont know what happened here but this was posted 3 times. Can the first 2 be removed?

Sure, just click the edit button below your post, scroll to the bottom of the window, click the delete box and then click the delete button. Posters can always delete their own posts when they are not the first in a thread.

Oh and I am glad JG is going tomorrow. I expect him to bring his A game and the Sox to ride that horse to victory.

jenn2080
07-17-2006, 10:51 AM
Sure, just click the edit button below your post, scroll to the bottom of the window, click the delete box and then click the delete button. Posters can always delete their own posts when they are not the first in a thread.

Oh and I am glad JG is going tomorrow. I expect him to bring his A game and the Sox to ride that horse to victory.


Thanks voodoo....

I am def glad JON is pitching tomorrow. He other then Jose has the only worth a damn right now.

chisoxmike
07-17-2006, 10:52 AM
You will be beat this week. Badly. I cant wait to see the Sox sweep the Tigers at home and all of the Tiger fans start to :whiner: .




:rolleyes:

Confidence is one thing, being an ass is another. No offense, but I highly doubt there will be a sweep from either side.

DaleJRFan
07-17-2006, 10:53 AM
I am glad JG is going tomorrow. I expect him to bring his A game and the Sox to ride that horse to victory.

Right on. There were numerous games last season when Garland was counted on to be the stopper - and he delivered. Over the past 30 days, Garland has been the Sox best starter, posting 3.50 ERA without allowing a single HR. 05 JG is back. Count on a good start tomorrow to get the ball rolling in the right direction for the Sox.

jenn2080
07-17-2006, 10:55 AM
:rolleyes:

Confidence is one thing, being an ass is another. No offense, but I highly doubt there will be a sweep from either side.

Absolutely and if there is i will be very SHOCKED!

cbotnyse
07-17-2006, 11:03 AM
:rolleyes:

Confidence is one thing, being an ass is another. No offense, but I highly doubt there will be a sweep from either side.I was just trying to do some light-hearted jabbing to the Tigers fan who started this thread! We need some confidence right now, and we need to shatter the high flying confidence the Tigers must have.

jenn2080
07-17-2006, 11:18 AM
I was just trying to do some light-hearted jabbing to the Tigers fan who started this thread! We need some confidence right now, and we need to shatter the high flying confidence the Tigers must have.

as they should have confidence they are kicking ass!

ondafarm
07-17-2006, 11:27 AM
I'd like to see the umpiring crew before I make any rash judgements on this series.

I do think that the Tigers have nothing to be crowing about beating the Royals 3 of 4. The Royals really coughed up at least two of those games. I think Rogers has been eminently hittable and the rest of the Tiger's pitching staff is returning to Earth. I just don't think the Tigers match up well against high-caliber right handed pitching. They strike out a lot, they don't play small ball well and their lead-off man has been playing like a mere mortal of late.

I think the Sox can sweep this series, but will they?

hawkjt
07-17-2006, 11:31 AM
AS bad as the sox starters have been in july-tigers are not perfect lately either.

Garland (2.35 in july,2.80 last 3 starts) vs Robertson( 4.80 in july)
Vasques( 4.35 in july) vs Bonderman(3.35 in july)
Contreras(3.20 in july) vs Rogers(9.05 in july, 9.92 last 4 starts)

obviously javy is against their best pitcher going right now other than verlander (.64 july-4.40 in june) and so bonderman has edge.

But the other two matchup look decent for the sox on paper. But still have to go out there and hit ,pitch and field like the world champs to take them out.

voodoochile
07-17-2006, 11:53 AM
Just a reminder to posters and Tiger fans. Sigs that people are gambling have to meet board standards for both decency and trolling. Tiger fans need to be very careful in the next three days especially if they post in the game threads.

Oblong this goes double for you.

cbotnyse
07-17-2006, 12:17 PM
Just a reminder to posters and Tiger fans. Sigs that people are gambling have to meet board standards for both decency and trolling. Tiger fans need to be very careful in the next three days especially if they post in the game threads.

Oblong this goes double for you.:dirtyharry methinks you guys will be busy this week...

voodoochile
07-17-2006, 12:38 PM
:dirtyharry methinks you guys will be busy this week...

I hope not, because that will mean the kitten trolls have nothing to brag about...:D:

Pierzynski 12
07-17-2006, 12:45 PM
I love how Tigers fans show up now. I would like to know where were they, when losing.:gulp:

delben91
07-17-2006, 12:52 PM
The Sox pitching can't be horrendous forever. Hopefully they decide to turn it around starting Tuesday.

No predictions, I'm a terrible jinx.

Pierzynski 12
07-17-2006, 12:53 PM
Do your thing Big Jon, starting tomorrow.:bandance:

SoxSpeed22
07-17-2006, 01:05 PM
prove it or lose it for both sides.

jenn2080
07-17-2006, 01:08 PM
I love how Tigers fan show up now. I would like to know where were they, when losing.:gulp:


who knows but i think it is pretty bad that there are idiots over at the cubs board talking smack about their performance when we got swept this weekend.

oeo
07-17-2006, 01:12 PM
Okay, let's be realistic. The season has two and a half months to go. In That's two and a half times loger than the time from September 1-October 1.

Some people think it's inevitable that the Tigers will keep up this torrid pace.

Tiger23
07-17-2006, 01:20 PM
I'd like to see the umpiring crew before I make any rash judgements on this series.

I do think that the Tigers have nothing to be crowing about beating the Royals 3 of 4. The Royals really coughed up at least two of those games. I think Rogers has been eminently hittable and the rest of the Tiger's pitching staff is returning to Earth. I just don't think the Tigers match up well against high-caliber right handed pitching. They strike out a lot, they don't play small ball well and their lead-off man has been playing like a mere mortal of late.

I think the Sox can sweep this series, but will they?

I really don't think their can be any crowing from the Tigers side until they prove they can beat the White Sox. As confident as I believe the Tigers are due to the way that they've played this season, I believe they are the ones with something to prove going into this series.

Tiger23
07-17-2006, 01:44 PM
Just a reminder to posters and Tiger fans. Sigs that people are gambling have to meet board standards for both decency and trolling. Tiger fans need to be very careful in the next three days especially if they post in the game threads.

Oblong this goes double for you.

I would fear for my life if I posted on a White Sox game thread, especially if the Tigers were lucky enough to have the lead. I won't be around once the series starts, but I bet you'll be hearing from a few trolls if the series goes the way I hope. The mods around here seem to do a great job at weeding them out though.

ondafarm
07-17-2006, 01:49 PM
Just because I've been questioned about this elsewhere:

last 30 days

C. Granderson 22-91 6 BB 25 K 3 SB .242 - .290 - .385
B. Anderson 13-46 3 BB 4 K 1 SB .283 - .333 - .413

Mickster
07-17-2006, 01:54 PM
Just because I've been questioned about this elsewhere:

last 30 days

C. Granderson 22-91 6 BB 25 K 3 SB .242 - .290 - .385
B. Anderson 13-46 3 BB 4 K 1 SB .283 - .333 - .413

Believe it or not,
I'm walking on air.
I never thought I could feel so free-.
Flying away on a wing and a prayer.
Who could it be?

:)

Tiger23
07-17-2006, 01:57 PM
One thing I'd like to mention: While the Tigers certainly didn't impress against the Royals in 3 of 4 games, they really aren't the slouches they were at the beginning of the year. They were hot before the break and they played very scrappy offensively this series. Unfortunately for them their pitching and defense were horrible.

Its tough to have confidence as a Tiger fan going into this series, but I think they were playing a much improved team.

Fake Chet Lemon
07-17-2006, 02:05 PM
Detroit will sweep. .

And you're from Michigan. SHOCKING!

Detroit for the first time plays the role of favorite. I'm anxious to see how they handle that. It's in Detroit, they are EXPECTED to win.

Fake Chet Lemon
07-17-2006, 02:10 PM
I love how Tigers fan show up now. I would like to know where were they, when losing.:gulp:

I welcome the Tiger fans, as long as they offer intelligent thought and don't overtly troll.

Timmy D's
07-17-2006, 02:14 PM
I'll take the bet. Sox are gonna sweep, so 2 of 3 is money honey!!

I think lil d is still mad we had a party late last year at their pad.
:bandance:

MarySwiss
07-17-2006, 02:21 PM
I welcome the Tiger fans, as long as they offer intelligent thought and don't overtly troll.

I agree. I have actually developed a soft spot for Tiger23, kind of like the one I have for my pets. :wink:

oeo
07-17-2006, 02:25 PM
One thing I'd like to mention: While the Tigers certainly didn't impress against the Royals in 3 of 4 games, they really aren't the slouches they were at the beginning of the year. They were hot before the break and they played very scrappy offensively this series. Unfortunately for them their pitching and defense were horrible.

Its tough to have confidence as a Tiger fan going into this series, but I think they were playing a much improved team.

Uhm...the Royals have played the Sox tough all year, just like every other team. Maybe they just said, we'd like to push the division leader, as well.

I've said all year that the Royals are not as bad as their record indicates. They're definately not the worst team in the majors, put them in the NL and they would probably fare pretty well.

Tiger23
07-17-2006, 03:02 PM
I love how Tigers fan show up now. I would like to know where were they, when losing.:gulp:

It really is too bad I didn't know about this site in 2003, I really could have had some fun.

The real reason I came is because our team was suddenly good and I wanted to see what the fans of the defending champs thought about it. Then when I found out people from Michigan were actually allowed to post I thought I'd join up. I'm sure there were a few more White Sox fans that ventured out last year than normally would have.

Mary, you're my favorite too :smile: . I'm not sure we'd get along in person though :angry: .

Tiger23
07-17-2006, 03:16 PM
Uhm...the Royals have played the Sox tough all year, just like every other team. Maybe they just said, we'd like to push the division leader, as well.

I've said all year that the Royals are not as bad as their record indicates. They're definately not the worst team in the majors, put them in the NL and they would probably fare pretty well.

Well, I really think they were as horrible as their record indicates at the beginning of the season when the Tigers were lucky enough to build a nice record against them. As many of you have said, it was the slow start by the White Sox that allowed the Royals to take 2 of 3. Since the GM switch they have seemed to play better, maybe even enough to Bell might get to keep his job, unless of course Moore wants to hire his own guy.

Uncle_Patrick
07-17-2006, 03:27 PM
idiots over at the cubs board

Redundant. :D:

Uncle_Patrick
07-17-2006, 03:30 PM
I love how Tigers fan show up now. I would like to know where were they, when losing.:gulp:

Eh, it happens with every fan base. Enrollment here was up bigtime last October.

I don't mind Tigers fans coming here as long as they are behaving themselves. I would expect the same from any White Sox fans registering over at Motown Tigers or any other Tigers board.

MarySwiss
07-17-2006, 03:31 PM
It really is too bad I didn't know about this site in 2003, I really could have had some fun.

The real reason I came is because our team was suddenly good and I wanted to see what the fans of the defending champs thought about it. Then when I found out people from Michigan were actually allowed to post I thought I'd join up. I'm sure there were a few more White Sox fans that ventured out last year than normally would have.

Mary, you're my favorite too :smile: . I'm not sure we'd get along in person though :angry: .

Oh, pshaw! We'd get along great, as long as you consistently remembered to show me the respect due a longtime, diehard fan of the Defending World Champions. (That would be the White Sox.)

And buying me numerous beers would also be a good thing. :D:

CLR01
07-17-2006, 06:02 PM
I love how Tigers fan show up now. I would like to know where were they, when losing.:gulp:



Where were you at before the Sox won the World Series?

Eh, it happens with every fan base. Enrollment here was up bigtime last October.


Its kind of funny he makes that comment when he didn't show up until November of last year.

CLR01
07-17-2006, 06:05 PM
Looks like the Tigers get to lose to a national audience with 2 ESPN games this series.

Timmy D's
07-17-2006, 06:28 PM
I accepted the wager, are we on???

MarySwiss
07-17-2006, 06:35 PM
Looks like the Tigers get to lose to a national audience with 2 ESPN games this series.
Wait, what!?! TWO ESPN games? Oh, ****!

Oblong
07-17-2006, 07:20 PM
Just a reminder to posters and Tiger fans. Sigs that people are gambling have to meet board standards for both decency and trolling. Tiger fans need to be very careful in the next three days especially if they post in the game threads.

Oblong this goes double for you.

My suggested sig line if I were to win was going to be light hearted and non obnoxious. Something like "The Detroit Tigers are the best team in baseball". Believe me, "Sox Sux" is offensive to me on a humorous level alone.

If Chicago wins 2 of 3 I will add whatever you guys can think of in my sig line.


But I won't be around during the game threads. It gets too emotional and I like it here. I have my own bar to party in.

MarySwiss
07-17-2006, 07:42 PM
My suggested sig line if I were to win was going to be light hearted and non obnoxious. Something like "The Detroit Tigers are the best team in baseball". Believe me, "Sox Sux" is offensive to me on a humorous level alone.
If Chicago wins 2 of 3 I will add whatever you guys can think of in my sig line.
But I won't be around during the game threads. It gets too emotional and I like it here. I have my own bar to party in.

Er, "non-obnoxious" and "The Detroit Tigers are the best team in baseball."? Strikes me as an oxymoron.

Sorry, dude. "The Detroit Tigers are the best team in baseball" when you guys actually win something. And I don't mean a series. Even if you sweep us (ha-ha-ha!) this series, we still have the edge.

Meanwhile, nice that you have your own bar to party in. Anyone joining you there, or is it a private party? :cool:

A. Cavatica
07-17-2006, 07:42 PM
Looks like the Tigers get to lose to a national audience with 2 ESPN games this series.

What happened, are the Red Sox and Yankees idle?

Pierzynski 12
07-17-2006, 07:47 PM
No offense to any Tigers fans on here. I just asked a question.

MarySwiss
07-17-2006, 07:50 PM
No offense to any Tigers fans on here. I just asked a question.

If you haven't gotten a response to your question, you obviously didn't ask it clearly enough. Care to rephrase?

Pierzynski 12
07-17-2006, 07:53 PM
If you haven't gotten a response to your question, you obviously didn't ask it clearly enough. Care to rephrase?

I was just wondering where were all these Tigers fans came from all of a sudden?

MarySwiss
07-17-2006, 07:59 PM
I was just wondering where were all these Tigers fans came from all of a sudden?

Ahhhh! Got it! Well, can't say for sure, but IMO, the other teams' fans need to hang out here because WSI is so far superior to their fan sites.

But that's just my opinion. Bolstered by the fact that I've never felt the need to post at any of their sites. Lurk, yes; post, no.

ondafarm
07-17-2006, 08:50 PM
Why is it Buddy Bell looks like a genius against us and a total mope against everyone else?

The Royals had the Red Sox down 4-0 going into the last of the 7th.

Manny singles (off the Monster.)

Next guy long fly deep center, caught against the wall.

Get somebody warm now Bozo Bell!!

Single to right.

Why isn't the guy ready now??? The tying run is on-deck!!!

Crisp singles, scoring the first run.

So let's see. Think your starting pitcher still has it? Talk it over with him. Bring in a relief pitcher. What if he hasn't got it? Maybe he'll blow it.

Three run homer to tie the game.

So let's check on how Buddy did here.

First two guys up in the seventh hit the ball 400 feet, but you got one out luckily. So the next guy gets a hit. Now, leave your tiring starter out there and let him get pasted and if you bring in a relief pitcher he'll have no margin for error.

Leave him out there for another blown game.

Okay, maybe the Royals aren't a good team, but Buddy Bell is bozoing them into oblivion.

CLR01
07-17-2006, 09:18 PM
Why is it Buddy Bell looks like a genius against us and a total mope against everyone else?

The Royals had the Red Sox down 4-0 going into the last of the 7th.

Manny singles (off the Monster.)

Next guy long fly deep center, caught against the wall.

Get somebody warm now Bozo Bell!!

Single to right.

Why isn't the guy ready now??? The tying run is on-deck!!!

Crisp singles, scoring the first run.

So let's see. Think your starting pitcher still has it? Talk it over with him. Bring in a relief pitcher. What if he hasn't got it? Maybe he'll blow it.

Three run homer to tie the game.

So let's check on how Buddy did here.

First two guys up in the seventh hit the ball 400 feet, but you got one out luckily. So the next guy gets a hit. Now, leave your tiring starter out there and let him get pasted and if you bring in a relief pitcher he'll have no margin for error.

Leave him out there for another blown game.

Okay, maybe the Royals aren't a good team, but Buddy Bell is bozoing them into oblivion.

:?::dunno:

Tiger23
07-17-2006, 09:39 PM
Er, "non-obnoxious" and "The Detroit Tigers are the best team in baseball."? Strikes me as an oxymoron.

Sorry, dude. "The Detroit Tigers are the best team in baseball" when you guys actually win something. And I don't mean a series. Even if you sweep us (ha-ha-ha!) this series, we still have the edge. :cool:

I agree. That line is so horrible that it would be perfect for some White Sox fan to use as a sig should the Tigers take 2 of 3.

One more question: Were the 98 Marlins the best team in baseball? I mean they won something the year before. right? It seems that by this point in the season you should judge teams by their overall record unless they have met RECENTLY and shown legitimately that they are worse than the position their record puts them in. Just something to think about.

ondafarm
07-17-2006, 09:42 PM
:?::dunno:

It's just the Tigers won 3 of 4 because Bell screwed up two of the games.

santo=dorf
07-17-2006, 09:51 PM
Just because I've been questioned about this elsewhere:

last 30 days

C. Granderson 22-91 6 BB 25 K 3 SB .242 - .290 - .385
B. Anderson 13-46 3 BB 4 K 1 SB .283 - .333 - .413
...and I loving every second of it. Too bad Brian isn't doing that over 91 at-bats.

Granderson might have more win shares however because his team has the better phythagorean record over that time.

I expect the Sox to lose the first game because Garland is on the bump, it's lefty Robertson, which means Widger is catching, which results in an automatic loss.

Sox win the next two after that. :cool:

kwolf68
07-17-2006, 10:28 PM
Why is it Buddy Bell looks like a genius against us and a total mope against everyone else?

The Royals had the Red Sox down 4-0 going into the last of the 7th.

Manny singles (off the Monster.)

Next guy long fly deep center, caught against the wall.

Get somebody warm now Bozo Bell!!

Single to right.

Why isn't the guy ready now??? The tying run is on-deck!!!

Crisp singles, scoring the first run.

So let's see. Think your starting pitcher still has it? Talk it over with him. Bring in a relief pitcher. What if he hasn't got it? Maybe he'll blow it.

Three run homer to tie the game.

So let's check on how Buddy did here.

First two guys up in the seventh hit the ball 400 feet, but you got one out luckily. So the next guy gets a hit. Now, leave your tiring starter out there and let him get pasted and if you bring in a relief pitcher he'll have no margin for error.

Leave him out there for another blown game.

Okay, maybe the Royals aren't a good team, but Buddy Bell is bozoing them into oblivion.


I see your point here, but Kansas City's bullpen is an automatic loss. I don't know if I'd make the call either...those guys are stiffs in their pen.

bluestar
07-17-2006, 10:30 PM
I expect the Sox to lose the first game because Garland is on the bump, it's lefty Robertson, which means Widger is catching,


I really hope Ozzie does not let Widger catch this game. I know AJ can't catch them all, but he just had a game off and with the day off today and the All-Star break, he should be as rested as anyone. With the day game Thursday and Rogers pitching, I suspect Ozzie might use Widger there instead.

jenn2080
07-17-2006, 10:30 PM
...and I loving every second of it. Too bad Brian isn't doing that over 91 at-bats.

Granderson might have more win shares however because his team has the better phythagorean record over that time.

I expect the Sox to lose the first game because Garland is on the bump, it's lefty Robertson, which means Widger is catching, which results in an automatic loss.

Sox win the next two after that. :cool:


Garland has been the better of the 5 other then Jose. I have full confidence in Garland. And I dont really see Widger catching. Ozzie has been letting AJ face lefties lately. AJ is on fire no matter who is pitching

Oblong
07-17-2006, 10:35 PM
I was just wondering where were all these Tigers fans came from all of a sudden?

I've been here for a few months. I have my regular Tiger board but somebody mentioned this site so I figured I'd see what it's about. Finding a good sports message board is pretty tough these days. I like to get other fans perspectives on baseball. It helps temper the enthusiasm. As I've said in other threads if I had to bet money I would bet on the Sox to win the division becaus they've done it before and I think the offense and pitching is more solid.

My idea for the sig lines was just to have some fun but maybe I'll drop the "bet" idea. I was trying to play off the thing that governors and mayors do where they make a friendly wager.

Enjoy this series. It's great for Tiger fans to finally have meaningful games in July. I'm glad that the Central is the best division in baseball. It's about time.

See you guys on Thursday evening.

Johnny Mostil
07-17-2006, 10:36 PM
I haven't had a chance to read this thread closely, but it doesn't look like anybody commented on my favorite answer to the front-page poll--that the Sox must win two of the three "to announce their presence with authority." I thought that hilarious, so kudos to somebody:thumbsup: . . .

ondafarm
07-17-2006, 11:46 PM
I see your point here, but Kansas City's bullpen is an automatic loss. I don't know if I'd make the call either...those guys are stiffs in their pen.

I think Bell is using the bullpen badly. Bringing a guy in with no margin for error when he's even vaguely marginal is dumb. If you've got a weak bull pen, you give them as simple a time as possible. It is much easier to start a new guy at the beginning of an inning and say "Kid, get three outs. If you walk one guy or give up a hit that's okay, just get me three outs." Instead, Bell brought in a kid and said "If you lose this guy, we lose the game." The kid went to 3-2 and then threw him a cookie.

Any major league pitcher should be able to get three outs when starting a new inning.

CLR01
07-18-2006, 03:28 AM
What happened, are the Red Sox and Yankees idle?


I am happy to report the Yankees will be the night game Thursday. I figure some ESPN flunky saw Sox @ Detroit Wednesday night and figured it was Boston playing.

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 09:40 AM
I agree. That line is so horrible that it would be perfect for some White Sox fan to use as a sig should the Tigers take 2 of 3.

One more question: Were the 98 Marlins the best team in baseball? I mean they won something the year before. right? It seems that by this point in the season you should judge teams by their overall record unless they have met RECENTLY and shown legitimately that they are worse than the position their record puts them in. Just something to think about.

Oh, I seeeee. Those first six games don't count because they weren't recent enough. THAT's how it works!

Thanks for clearing it up for me. :cool:

Now let me clarify my thought process on this for YOU, okay? IMO, the fact that a team has the best record in baseball at a given time does not necessarily mean they are the best team in baseball. The best team will be the one that wins the World Series, (although I heard a lot of pissing and moaning from Yankees fans in 2001 when the D'Backs knocked off their sorry asses). The last team standing is the best team.

Which will be the Chicago White Sox. :D:

Pierzynski 12
07-18-2006, 09:44 AM
Chris Widger better be on the bench for all 3 games.

cbotnyse
07-18-2006, 09:46 AM
Chris Widger better be on the bench for all 3 games.I'm guessing he will.

Pierzynski 12
07-18-2006, 09:47 AM
I'm guessing he will.

This is a big series for us to cut that lead again. So, there's no need to put Widger in any of these 3 games.

The Immigrant
07-18-2006, 09:49 AM
I expect the Sox to lose the first game because Garland is on the bump, it's lefty Robertson, which means Widger is catching, which results in an automatic loss.

Per Mike North, A.J.'s reaction to Widger starting the first game in NY was "I'm the only guy who gets demoted for making the All-Star team." :redneck

My sense is that if we see Widger play in this series, it will be on Thursday (day game after night game, facing a lefty).

jenn2080
07-18-2006, 09:58 AM
Oh, I seeeee. Those first six games don't count because they weren't recent enough. THAT's how it works!

Thanks for clearing it up for me. :cool:

Now let me clarify my thought process on this for YOU, okay? IMO, the fact that a team has the best record in baseball at a given time does not necessarily mean they are the best team in baseball. The best team will be the one that wins the World Series, (although I heard a lot of pissing and moaning from Yankees fans in 2001 when the D'Backs knocked off their sorry asses). The last team standing is the best team.

Which will be the Chicago White Sox. :D:

Dont get Mary worked up.

jenn2080
07-18-2006, 09:59 AM
Chris Widger better be on the bench for all 3 games.

If Widger is in I am not sure I will be able to watch

Tiger23
07-18-2006, 10:18 AM
Oh, I seeeee. Those first six games don't count because they weren't recent enough. THAT's how it works!

Thanks for clearing it up for me. :cool:

Now let me clarify my thought process on this for YOU, okay? IMO, the fact that a team has the best record in baseball at a given time does not necessarily mean they are the best team in baseball. The best team will be the one that wins the World Series, (although I heard a lot of pissing and moaning from Yankees fans in 2001 when the D'Backs knocked off their sorry asses). The last team standing is the best team.

Which will be the Chicago White Sox. :D:

So who is the best team right now? I mean certainly there is one, whether it matters or not. My thought is that the Tigers are being that they have the best record. Should the Sox take 2 of 3 in Detroit that changes.

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 10:20 AM
So who is the best team right now?

There isn't one. There's a defending World Champions team and a team with the best record in baseball.

Temporarily.

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 10:22 AM
If Widger is in I am not sure I will be able to watch

I'd almost prefer not to watch the game just to save wear-and-tear on my nervous system. And lungs. And liver.

But I'm scheduled to write the TBGR. So I guess I'll just have to force myself. :D:

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 10:24 AM
So who is the best team right now? I mean certainly there is one, whether it matters or not. My thought is that the Tigers are being that they have the best record. Should the Sox take 2 of 3 in Detroit that changes.

Where's your logic here? Should the Sox take 2 out of 3--hell, even if they sweep you guys--you'll still have the best record in baseball, just not against us. And even if you sweep us (won't happen), we'll still have the best head-to-head.

Tiger23
07-18-2006, 10:58 AM
Where's your logic here? Should the Sox take 2 out of 3--hell, even if they sweep you guys--you'll still have the best record in baseball, just not against us. And even if you sweep us (won't happen), we'll still have the best head-to-head.

My logic was in the post you replied to sarcastically earlier this morning, regarding the best record tied in with recent head to head performance. In my opinion, a series win by Chicago this week cancels Detroit's better record.

The White Sox 5-1 record is so far in the past that it doesn't figure in IMO, unless the domination continues. I compared it earlier to our drubbing of the Twins. I don't think anyone would kid themselves saying that would happen again at this point.

Meaningless arguments like this make me even more eager to just get these games going. I do know that it doesn't really matter, but I do think there is a best team in baseball regardless.

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 11:10 AM
My logic was in the post you replied to sarcastically earlier this morning, regarding the best record tied in with recent head to head performance. In my opinion, a series win by Chicago this week cancels Detroit's better record.

The White Sox 5-1 record is so far in the past that it doesn't figure in IMO, unless the domination continues. I compared it earlier to our drubbing of the Twins. I don't think anyone would kid themselves saying that would happen again at this point.

Meaningless arguments like this make me even more eager to just get these games going. I do know that it doesn't really matter, but I do think there is a best team in baseball regardless.

Wanna fight?:wink:

Seriously, I too think there is a best team in baseball. And I hate to tell you this, but if you have a problem with sarcasm, you are probably in the wrong place. :cool:

PennStater98r
07-18-2006, 11:14 AM
I agree. That line is so horrible that it would be perfect for some White Sox fan to use as a sig should the Tigers take 2 of 3.

One more question: Were the 98 Marlins the best team in baseball? I mean they won something the year before. right? It seems that by this point in the season you should judge teams by their overall record unless they have met RECENTLY and shown legitimately that they are worse than the position their record puts them in. Just something to think about.

Dude - no offense, but your analogy is poor. Unlike the 1998 Marlins, the White Sox kept more than 5 players from that championship team - and they have four out of their five starters from last year.

I think that you have to weigh the previous year with the current year's performance. It's not as though we're comparing teams that are the same team in name only. Further, the White Sox bettered their team from last year. The Tigers have upgraded in only one spot since last year - and that is their Ace - their 41 year old ace. Rookies may look good the first time through the league, but in 162, rookies come back down to earth in September.

Thanks for playing. :cool:

Tiger23
07-18-2006, 12:10 PM
Wanna fight?:wink:

Seriously, I too think there is a best team in baseball. And I hate to tell you this, but if you have a problem with sarcasm, you are probably in the wrong place. :cool:

My bad, I didn't mean to say that I had a problem with your sarcastic answer.....

And no, I don't feel like getting beat up again today thank you very much :smile: .

Tiger23
07-18-2006, 12:14 PM
Dude - no offense, but your analogy is poor. Unlike the 1998 Marlins, the White Sox kept more than 5 players from that championship team - and they have four out of their five starters from last year.

I think that you have to weigh the previous year with the current year's performance. It's not as though we're comparing teams that are the same team in name only. Further, the White Sox bettered their team from last year. The Tigers have upgraded in only one spot since last year - and that is their Ace - their 41 year old ace. Rookies may look good the first time through the league, but in 162, rookies come back down to earth in September.

Thanks for playing. :cool:

Well obviously the two teams aren't similar, I was just stating that I don't believe the last year's champ argument isn't a good one. I agree that the Sox are the champs until someone knocks them off. Doesn't mean they are the best team right now though.

0o0o0
07-18-2006, 12:20 PM
The White Sox 5-1 record is so far in the past that it doesn't figure in IMO, unless the domination continues. I compared it earlier to our drubbing of the Twins. I don't think anyone would kid themselves saying that would happen again at this point.

The Atlanta Braves are the best team in baseball. :tongue:

PennStater98r
07-18-2006, 12:34 PM
Well obviously the two teams aren't similar, I was just stating that I don't believe the last year's champ argument isn't a good one. I agree that the Sox are the champs until someone knocks them off. Doesn't mean they are the best team right now though.

So, if we are going to talk right now, the Tigers are not the best team in baseball. There's a joke post above that indicates that Atlanta is the best team in baseball, and know what? Right now, they are. Tell me - have the Tigers proven that they can consistantly beat playoff contenders - other than the Cardinals? Have they proven that they can beat teams within their own division with those teams firing on all cylinders? I don't think they have.

Baseball is a marathon. Two rookie starters will hurt come September. They're one significant injury - with a group of guys who have a history of injuries - from having a significant hole in their line-up. Maybe they make a deal for Smoltz, a great consistant hitter or something else - but right now they have proven that they are the best team in baseball by any stretch of the imagination.

The White Sox - with the second best record in baseball, a World Series trophey that is less than a year old, and the best line-up and bench in baseball - statistically speaking and a damn good pitching staff to go with damn good defense and one reliever away from being a great bullpen just have more evidence to support them as the best team in baseball.

Far better and far worse teams than the White Sox have gone into Yankee Stadium and been swept out of there. It's a hiccup - and tell me - how did the Tigers do against Boston and the Yankees this year?

ondafarm
07-18-2006, 12:37 PM
Dont get Mary worked up.

Second that.

Survival rule: NEVER make a red head angry!! This here universe ain't big enough to run and hide in if you do.

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 12:43 PM
jenn2080]Dont get Mary worked up.
Second that.

Survival rule: NEVER make a red head angry!! This here universe ain't big enough to run and hide in if you do.

Now, now!

Tiger23 should be safe, as long as he

1) Keeps the hell out of Arizona, or
2) Comes to Arizona but doesn't let me know he's here.

You may be sure I have no plans to ever again visit Detroit. Been there twice. Two times too many.

PennStater98r
07-18-2006, 12:45 PM
:tomatoaward

Did someone say redhead? Speaking of red...

ondafarm
07-18-2006, 12:48 PM
So who is the best team right now? I mean certainly there is one, whether it matters or not. My thought is that the Tigers are being that they have the best record. Should the Sox take 2 of 3 in Detroit that changes.

Currently against AL teams that are .500 or better (Bosox, NYY, Tor, Det, Chi, Min, Tex and Oak) the following are the team records.

Bosox 18-24
NYY 23-18
Tor 18-16

Det 18-17
W.Sox 21-14
Minn 17-21

Tex 22-24
Oak 20-22

So who is the best?

When the Tigers beat someone that counts consistently, they are 7-2 against the Twins, 11-15 against the other good teams, then they can claim the title of best team in baseball.

While they keep beating creampuffs, they don't deserve the title.

PennStater98r
07-18-2006, 01:16 PM
Hey on-da you know what would be fun - posting the records of the Tigers 2005+2006 and the White Sox 2005+2006.

Tiger23
07-18-2006, 01:20 PM
Well you all make very valid arguments. My official stance is this:

The team that wins this series should, and in my opinion will, be considered the best team in baseball, until something happens to prove otherwise.

That trumps all the "the Tigers haven't beaten anyone arguments" because if the Tigers win, they will have beaten the White Sox. If they lose, well then they don't deserve that consideration and the White Sox do.


Mary, lucky for me I am from the West Side of Michigan, as I am not a huge Detroit (the city itself) fan either. Its actually the same length drive to Chicago as it is Detroit. In fact, my dad was trying to get me to head to Chicago for a few games when they play the Tigers. I said no because there is no way the White Sox are gonna pay salaries with my money! Plus I probably wouldn't have survived in my Tiger gear.

I will say this for Detroit though...you can get into some pretty interesting conversations with those bums. They must be cashing in above the poverty line with all the traffic thanks to the Tigers winning :D: . I am actualyl gonna ask a few of them this week.

Tiger23
07-18-2006, 01:20 PM
Hey on-da you know what would be fun - posting the records of the Tigers 2005+2006 and the White Sox 2005+2006.

LOL!

Cheap shot! You had to bring that in didn't ya.

oeo
07-18-2006, 01:20 PM
Currently against AL teams that are .500 or better (Bosox, NYY, Tor, Det, Chi, Min, Tex and Oak) the following are the team records.

Bosox 18-24
NYY 23-18
Tor 18-16

Det 18-17
W.Sox 21-14
Minn 17-21

Tex 22-24
Oak 20-22

So who is the best?

When the Tigers beat someone that counts consistently, they are 7-2 against the Twins, 11-15 against the other good teams, then they can claim the title of best team in baseball.

While they keep beating creampuffs, they don't deserve the title.

And that's when Twins pitching was crapping their pants. Remember when they got outscored in one of those series like 30-1 or something like that?

Timmy D's
07-18-2006, 01:23 PM
Break out the Government cheese!!! Here comes a White Sox sweep!!!!!!:bandance:

PennStater98r
07-18-2006, 01:27 PM
LOL!

Cheap shot! You had to bring that in didn't ya.

:cool:

I only bring it up because - there really is little difference in personnel from the 2005 to 2006 Tigers - furthermore - little difference in personnel from 2005 Sox to 2006 Sox.

.

oeo
07-18-2006, 01:34 PM
Well, I really think they were as horrible as their record indicates at the beginning of the season when the Tigers were lucky enough to build a nice record against them. As many of you have said, it was the slow start by the White Sox that allowed the Royals to take 2 of 3. Since the GM switch they have seemed to play better, maybe even enough to Bell might get to keep his job, unless of course Moore wants to hire his own guy.
The Royals are currently the only team Jenks has blown a save against this year *knock on wood*. They have played the Sox hard all year, even outside of that 3-game series at the beginning of the year.

bluestar
07-18-2006, 02:52 PM
Plus I probably wouldn't have survived in my Tiger gear.


The last time I saw the Tigers play the Sox in Chicago, I sat just a couple of seats from a group of guys decked out in Tigers gear. Not only did they survive, they seemed to enjoy themselves.

Tiger23
07-18-2006, 03:21 PM
:cool:

I only bring it up because - there really is little difference in personnel from the 2005 to 2006 Tigers - furthermore - little difference in personnel from 2005 Sox to 2006 Sox.

.

Not quite:

We have a healthy Rodney, who was a year off of Tommy John last year. We have Todd Jones, who has not been good but has done decent ONE INNING SAVE SITUATIONS. Notice the emphasis there. Bring him in with runners on or expect him to go two innings, kiss the game goodbye. Grilli and Ledezma weren't with the team almuch of the year, and niether was Colon. Obviously Zumaya is new and has done well.

In the replaced Jason Johnson and a revolving door with Rogers and Verlander. And now Maroth with Miner.

Granderson is basically a rookie, and he got up too late to make a difference last year. Polanco was only here half the year. Pudge is a much different player than he was last year because of a divorce and he didnt like Tram (trust me, he's the same person but totally different). Maggs played half the games and is healthy now. Guillen played 3/4 of the games tops and is healthy now. Marcus Thames came out of nowhere this year. He was up for a bit in 05 but wasn't given much of a chance and certainly didn't produce.

11 of the 15 mentioned above spent some time with Detroit last year. So you could say there hasn't been much turnover. However, none of them contributed full capacity and most actually had a reason why.

Tiger23
07-18-2006, 03:24 PM
The last time I saw the Tigers play the Sox in Chicago, I sat just a couple of seats from a group of guys decked out in Tigers gear. Not only did they survive, they seemed to enjoy themselves.

LOL. I should have put that in teal. Besides, I know my buddies from WSI would have my back.

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 03:31 PM
Hey, Kitten fans!

There is usually a chat going during the games. Feel free to drop in if you prefer your abuse in real-time. :D:

Oblong
07-18-2006, 03:31 PM
Currently against AL teams that are .500 or better (Bosox, NYY, Tor, Det, Chi, Min, Tex and Oak) the following are the team records.

Bosox 18-24
NYY 23-18
Tor 18-16

Det 18-17
W.Sox 21-14
Minn 17-21

Tex 22-24
Oak 20-22

So who is the best?

When the Tigers beat someone that counts consistently, they are 7-2 against the Twins, 11-15 against the other good teams, then they can claim the title of best team in baseball.

While they keep beating creampuffs, they don't deserve the title.

Very interesting chart.

Remove head to head and Detroit is 17-12 and Chicago is 16-13. I wonder what Boston/NY and Tex/Oak are if you remove head to head.

My point isn't to argue who is the best. It's July. I think the best team is the one a the end of the season with the best record. Heck, the best team doesn't always win the world series either. Baseball's long season goes a good way towards letting the regular season decide who the best team. The way I see it the post season is too much of a fluke. Teams can go to 3 or 4 man rotations. Players can slump. Too much of a crap shoot.

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 03:42 PM
Very interesting chart.

Remove head to head and Detroit is 17-12 and Chicago is 16-13. I wonder what Boston/NY and Tex/Oak are if you remove head to head.

My point isn't to argue who is the best. It's July. I think the best team is the one a the end of the season with the best record. Heck, the best team doesn't always win the world series either. Baseball's long season goes a good way towards letting the regular season decide who the best team. The way I see it the post season is too much of a fluke. Teams can go to 3 or 4 man rotations. Players can slump. Too much of a crap shoot.

I think the best team is the one at the end of the season with the best record.
Apples and oranges. If the Mets run away--as they have so far--and finish with the best record in baseball, that means they're the best team? That's just silly.

Heck, the best team doesn't always win the world series either....The way I see it the post season is too much of a fluke.
Disagree yet again. Based on your logic, we should just award the WS trophy to whoever has the best record, regardless of what division or league they play in. Silly.

The way I see it, the postseason is too much of a fluke. Teams can go to 3 or 4 man rotations. Players can slump. Too much of a crap shoot.
And your alternative solution is?

Remove head to head and Detroit is 17-12 and Chicago is 16-13.
Unfortunately (for the Tigers), it doesn't work that way.

See ya in a few. Be afraid. Be very afraid!

ondafarm
07-18-2006, 03:43 PM
Very interesting chart.

Remove head to head and Detroit is 17-12 and Chicago is 16-13. I wonder what Boston/NY and Tex/Oak are if you remove head to head.

My point isn't to argue who is the best. It's July. I think the best team is the one a the end of the season with the best record. Heck, the best team doesn't always win the world series either. Baseball's long season goes a good way towards letting the regular season decide who the best team. The way I see it the post season is too much of a fluke. Teams can go to 3 or 4 man rotations. Players can slump. Too much of a crap shoot.

Not sure why you would remove the head to head results. I would think those would be the fairest comparators.

NYY and Bos are 5-5.

Tex is 6-4 vs Oak.

Detroit has feasted on Minn 7-2 Clev 7-3 Seattle 5-1 and KC 11-1. Against the rest of the league they are 3 under.

W.Sox are 8 over against everyone except those four teams.

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 03:46 PM
Not sure why you would remove the head to head results. I would think those would be the fairest comparators.

NYY and Bos are 5-5.

Tex is 6-4 vs Oak.

Detroit has feasted on Minn 7-2 Clev 7-3 Seattle 5-1 and KC 11-1. Against the rest of the league they are 3 under.

W.Sox are 8 over against everyone except those four teams.

Well Onda, that's because that's the only way he (or she) can make the argument.

PennStater98r
07-18-2006, 04:44 PM
Not quite:

We have a healthy Rodney, who was a year off of Tommy John last year. We have Todd Jones, who has not been good but has done decent ONE INNING SAVE SITUATIONS. Notice the emphasis there. Bring him in with runners on or expect him to go two innings, kiss the game goodbye. Grilli and Ledezma weren't with the team almuch of the year, and niether was Colon. Obviously Zumaya is new and has done well.

In the replaced Jason Johnson and a revolving door with Rogers and Verlander. And now Maroth with Miner.

Granderson is basically a rookie, and he got up too late to make a difference last year. Polanco was only here half the year. Pudge is a much different player than he was last year because of a divorce and he didnt like Tram (trust me, he's the same person but totally different). Maggs played half the games and is healthy now. Guillen played 3/4 of the games tops and is healthy now. Marcus Thames came out of nowhere this year. He was up for a bit in 05 but wasn't given much of a chance and certainly didn't produce.

11 of the 15 mentioned above spent some time with Detroit last year. So you could say there hasn't been much turnover. However, none of them contributed full capacity and most actually had a reason why.

Perhaps you would like to review my comments about the Tigers being one injury away from having a significant problem. You can say that you have a lot of new things such as a guy being healthy or there for the whole season - but the bottom line is that there was very little personnel change from the end of 2005 to the start of 2006 for both teams. I could tell you that Jenks spent most of the time in the minors and that he's a significant change from last year, but he's not. He factored into their success greatly.

Rooks won't last the marathon my friend. With as many injury prone guys as Detroit has - one or more of them will end up missing time. I also need to remind you that Magglio spent more time with us than he has with you - you'll see his true colors soon enough - and GIDP will be his nickname there. Trust me. You don't have that much of a different team than you did last year. You just have many MANY of them overperforming. You have a bunch of Cliff Polittes on your team this year. We only had a few guys overperform last year - Politte is one, but that's about it.

Tiger23
07-18-2006, 05:35 PM
Perhaps you would like to review my comments about the Tigers being one injury away from having a significant problem. You can say that you have a lot of new things such as a guy being healthy or there for the whole season - but the bottom line is that there was very little personnel change from the end of 2005 to the start of 2006 for both teams. I could tell you that Jenks spent most of the time in the minors and that he's a significant change from last year, but he's not. He factored into their success greatly.

Rooks won't last the marathon my friend. With as many injury prone guys as Detroit has - one or more of them will end up missing time. I also need to remind you that Magglio spent more time with us than he has with you - you'll see his true colors soon enough - and GIDP will be his nickname there. Trust me. You don't have that much of a different team than you did last year. You just have many MANY of them overperforming. You have a bunch of Cliff Polittes on your team this year. We only had a few guys overperform last year - Politte is one, but that's about it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue about here. My post was specifically related to roster turnover. My argument was that there is more turnover than there appears because we never really ahd a set roster last year.

As far as people overachieving, what's to say that the same guys didn't just underachieve last year. Maggs, Guillen, and Rodriguez are putting bumbers they did in the past. Thames is putting up numbers he always displayed in the minors, and this has been his first extended playing time opportunity. I still think he is overachieving, but he continues to rake much longer than anyone could have expected. Who else on our lineup is even close to overachieving?

Rogers is putting up numbers he has in the past, including signs of a swoon which could be trouble. Bonderman is 23 with great stuff and basically no time in the minors. I don't think he is overperforming. Verlander has unbelievable stuff. He may not last the season, but what you are seeing him do is based on talent not luck. Maroth/Miner have overachieved, as has Robertson.

The only intricate piece back from last year in our bullpen is Rodney, who as I mentioned was a year off of arm surgery. Zumaya put up great numbers in the minors, and like Verlander is having success based on talent. He is also throwing much fewer innings so I think he'll last the season.

That gives me a list of Thames, Miner/Maroth, and Robertson as overachievers.

As for the injuries, obviously that is a concern, but there is nothing we can do about it. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Maggs considered very durable before his knee problems?

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 05:45 PM
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue about here. My post was specifically related to roster turnover. My argument was that there is more turnover than there appears because we never really ahd a set roster last year.

As far as people overachieving, what's to say that the same guys didn't just underachieve last year. Maggs, Guillen, and Rodriguez are putting bumbers they did in the past. Thames is putting up numbers he always displayed in the minors, and this has been his first extended playing time opportunity. I still think he is overachieving, but he continues to rake much longer than anyone could have expected. Who else on our lineup is even close to overachieving?

Rogers is putting up numbers he has in the past, including signs of a swoon which could be trouble. Bonderman is 23 with great stuff and basically no time in the minors. I don't think he is overperforming. Verlander has unbelievable stuff. He may not last the season, but what you are seeing him do is based on talent not luck. Maroth/Miner have overachieved, as has Robertson.

The only intricate piece back from last year in our bullpen is Rodney, who as I mentioned was a year off of arm surgery. Zumaya put up great numbers in the minors, and like Verlander is having success based on talent. He is also throwing much fewer innings so I think he'll last the season.

That gives me a list of Thames, Miner/Maroth, and Robertson as overachievers.

As for the injuries, obviously that is a concern, but there is nothing we can do about it. And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Maggs considered very durable before his knee problems?

Whoa, chill out Maynard!

You have made some valid points. Overachieve/underachieve. tomato/tomahto.

I'm not going to argue this point-by-point (Pennstater98r can if he wants), but one comment I will make: Yes, Maggs was considered very durable brfore his knee (or whatever) surgery. However, that was then; this is now.

And now, I will be stepping to the phone to call Rosati's (I know, but what can I do?) and order a pizza to make sure it gets here by gametime.

I'd love to wish you good luck, but that ain't happenin' anytime soon!

Tiger23
07-18-2006, 05:46 PM
It's been fun ladies and gents. I wish good luck to you during the series, but not to your team. I'm going to be staying away from here until the series is done. Peace.

MarySwiss
07-18-2006, 05:51 PM
It's been fun ladies and gents. I wish good luck to you during the series, but not to your team. I'm going to be staying away from here until the series is done. Peace.

Nice to have you here. You have the potential to be the Fenway of Detroit.

This kind of puts me in mind of one of my favorite WWII flicks-The Enemy Below-for some reason. Anyone?

QCIASOXFAN
07-18-2006, 06:34 PM
It's been fun ladies and gents. I wish good luck to you during the series, but not to your team. I'm going to be staying away from here until the series is done. Peace. Oh you'll be watching this thread don't lie.:tongue:

Jenks4Pres
07-18-2006, 06:45 PM
I'm in class, is there an official game thread?

cbotnyse
07-18-2006, 06:47 PM
I'm in class, is there an official game thread?we are up 1-0 in the 4th.....game thread here (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=75371)

voodoochile
07-18-2006, 06:48 PM
I'm in class, is there an official game thread?

In the PTC/Gameday forum.

Baby Fisk
07-19-2006, 09:31 AM
Detroit's record vs. Chicago, New York and Boston this season is now 3-11.

downstairs
07-19-2006, 09:44 AM
All you need to know about Detroit right now:

Record vs. KC: 11-1
Record vs. NL: 15-3

That's 42% percent of their wins against splits that every AL team should beat to the level Detroit has.

To me, Detroit is up there with Toronto. Good, but it should be a slight surprise if either gets past a NY, BOS, White Sox for the playoffs.

I still think its going to be a race... but come on... nearly half of your wins against KC and the NL??!?

Baby Fisk
07-19-2006, 09:47 AM
All you need to know about Detroit right now:

Record vs. KC: 11-1
Record vs. NL: 15-3

That's 42% percent of their wins against splits that every AL team should beat to the level Detroit has.

To me, Detroit is up there with Toronto. Good, but it should be a slight surprise if either gets past a NY, BOS, White Sox for the playoffs.

I still think its going to be a race... but come on... nearly half of your wins against KC and the NL??!?
Talk about "paper tigers".

downstairs
07-19-2006, 10:00 AM
Talk about "paper tigers".

Yeah, and for those scoring at home... without the KC and NL wins, the Tigers are 36-31 (.537).

.537 in the AL is good for pretty much dead middle.

I'm aware that if you took any team's best blocks of wins away, they become "worse".... but just keep in mind how unbalanced their schedule has been thus far.

Baby Fisk
07-19-2006, 10:03 AM
Yeah, and for those scoring at home... without the KC and NL wins, the Tigers are 36-31 (.537).

.537 in the AL is good for pretty much dead middle.
.537 puts Minnesota back into second place. With Santana and Liriano on fire, maybe it's a good thing the Twinkie outfield has been decimated???

TornLabrum
07-19-2006, 10:08 AM
Okay, without the NL and KC the Tigers are at .537. How about the Sox?

Lip Man 1
07-19-2006, 10:24 AM
But unfortunately we can't 'pick and choose' which games count and which doesn't...they all count...games against the Royals as well as the Yankees.

And in that category Detroit has done a better job, which is why they are in the position they are in for right now.

We'll see.

Lip

Iwritecode
07-19-2006, 10:39 AM
Okay, without the NL and KC the Tigers are at .537. How about the Sox?

The Sox are 20 - 7 against the NL & KC combined. About 35% of their total wins. Take those games away and they have a win percentage of .584. Just a little bit better than Detroit.

I don't think this really proves anything that hasn't already been said.

Detroit is beating the crap out of bad teams and about average against good teams.

The Sox are beating the crap of out bad teams (but not as much as Detroit) and are a little bit better than average against good teams.

MarySwiss
07-19-2006, 11:08 AM
Just for the hell of it, I snuck over and peeked at motownsports' game thread from last night. They were for the most part civilized, albeit depressed.

Interestingly, that guy who was waving the sweater was also hearing it big-time from them.

bluestar
07-19-2006, 11:09 AM
.537 puts Minnesota back into second place. With Santana and Liriano on fire, maybe it's a good thing the Twinkie outfield has been decimated???

This is not accurate, because if you look at the Twins' record without the NL and KC, which is the only accurate comparison with the given parameters, the Twins have a winning percentage of .477.

As Lip said, all the games count, and Detroit has been more dominating against the weaker teams than the Sox. Such comparisons and statistics might make for good message board fodder, or serve to make fans feel better about their team's future, but the only thing that really matters at this point is who wins the game tonight. The Sox being 6 - 1 against the Tigers does not win them the game tonight. The Tigers being 11 - 1 against the Royals does not win them the game tonight.

FielderJones
07-19-2006, 04:39 PM
Just for the hell of it, I snuck over and peeked at motownsports' game thread from last night. They were for the most part civilized, albeit depressed.

Interestingly, that guy who was waving the sweater was also hearing it big-time from them.

The uncivilized ones were quite disturbing. Besides called for the red shirt guy to be killed, there were posts asking for Konero to be beaned, Crede to be beaned, Dye to shot by a sniper. I might be wrong but I've never seen WSIers wishing bodily harm or death on another team's players.

:o:

The Immigrant
07-19-2006, 04:43 PM
The uncivilized ones were quite disturbing. Besides called for the red shirt guy to be killed, there were posts asking for Konero to be beaned, Crede to be beaned, Dye to shot by a sniper. I might be wrong but I've never seen WSIers wishing bodily harm or death on another team's players.

:o:

If you had to live in Detroit, you'd have homicidal tendencies too...:tongue:

MarySwiss
07-19-2006, 04:46 PM
The uncivilized ones were quite disturbing. Besides called for the red shirt guy to be killed, there were posts asking for Konero to be beaned, Crede to be beaned, Dye to shot by a sniper. I might be wrong but I've never seen WSIers wishing bodily harm or death on another team's players.

:o:

Well, you're right and you're wrong. I don't recall anyone ever wishing death on a player on WSI, but I've seen a number of posts that called for players to be beaned.

However, I think we need to take a couple of things into account here.

1) The definition of "beaned" has apparently been modified somewhere because people use it to describe a hit batsman, not matter where they were hit. "Beaned" originally meant "hit in the head."

2) This is a gamethread. Passions run high. I've seen posts on some of our gamethreads that I felt warranted calling out the men in the white coats. IMO, the post that called for a sniper to take out Dye--although I didn't see it; didn't read the entire thread--was probably posted by some extremely drunk, frustrated Kittens fan.

CLR01
07-19-2006, 05:19 PM
Well, you're right and you're wrong. I don't recall anyone ever wishing death on a player on WSI, but I've seen a number of posts that called for players to be beaned.

However, I think we need to take a couple of things into account here.

1) The definition of "beaned" has apparently been modified somewhere because people use it to describe a hit batsman, not matter where they were hit. "Beaned" originally meant "hit in the head."

2) This is a gamethread. Passions run high. I've seen posts on some of our gamethreads that I felt warranted calling out the men in the white coats. IMO, the post that called for a sniper to take out Dye--although I didn't see it; didn't read the entire thread--was probably posted by some extremely drunk, frustrated Kittens fan.


Bull****, that place is a ****hole. Posts like that are all over the place. I have visited motown sports a few times and I was disgusted by the number of people over there celebrating AJ getting sucker punched, the shot Pods took in New York last year, wishing the plane would crash or "x player" would die, etc..... I really don't care if some of it was said sarcastically it is still disgusting and wrong. That place is everything that the staff here works hard to keep off the boards.

MarySwiss
07-19-2006, 05:20 PM
Bull****, that place is a ****hole. Posts like that are all over the place. I have visited motown sports a few times and I was disgusted by the number of people over there celebrating AJ getting sucker punched, the shot Pods took in New York last year, wishing the plane would crash or "x player" would die, etc.....

Well, maybe so. But when I checked out yesterday's game thread, I saw a bunch of comments about how good we are. Many of them sounded just flat-out depressed.

But as I said, I didn't read the entire thread word for word.

santo=dorf
07-19-2006, 05:24 PM
The Sox are 20 - 7 against the NL & KC combined. About 35% of their total wins. Take those games away and they have a win percentage of .584. Just a little bit better than Detroit.

.584 to .537 is a huge difference
.584 over full season = 95-67
.537 over full season = 87-75

I'd like to see someone oer at motownsports put a spin on that one without bashing Chicago or making a Ligue reference. :rolleyes:

Oblong
07-19-2006, 08:05 PM
I think the best team is the one at the end of the season with the best record.
Apples and oranges. If the Mets run away--as they have so far--and finish with the best record in baseball, that means they're the best team? That's just silly.

Heck, the best team doesn't always win the world series either....The way I see it the post season is too much of a fluke.
Disagree yet again. Based on your logic, we should just award the WS trophy to whoever has the best record, regardless of what division or league they play in. Silly.

The way I see it, the postseason is too much of a fluke. Teams can go to 3 or 4 man rotations. Players can slump. Too much of a crap shoot.
And your alternative solution is?

Remove head to head and Detroit is 17-12 and Chicago is 16-13.
Unfortunately (for the Tigers), it doesn't work that way.

See ya in a few. Be afraid. Be very afraid!

1. Over a 162 game season tend things to even out. If the Mets win more games than anybody else then you can make that argument. There's no other measurement that's more objective.

2. I don't think the point of theWorld Series is to necessarily determine the best team. I don't think the 2003 Marlins were the best team. They won the games they were supposed to win but a short game series is a small sample to make definitive statements. I was glad the Sox won last year because they were the best team all season long and I would have hated it to go to waste over a fluke play, bad call, etc.

3. My point isn't to suggest one. The league makes too much money off the post season. The World Series winners get the title of World Champs. That's deserved. But all it means is they won an 8 game tournament.

4. I'm always afraid of the Sox. They are a great team. I was ther e last night. When the inning is over and you see "Due up: Konerko, Thome, Dye" it's a bad sign.

cbotnyse
07-19-2006, 08:20 PM
1. Over a 162 game season tend things to even out. If the Mets win more games than anybody else then you can make that argument. There's no other measurement that's more objective.

2. I don't think the point of theWorld Series is to necessarily determine the best team. I don't think the 2003 Marlins were the best team. They won the games they were supposed to win but a short game series is a small sample to make definitive statements. I was glad the Sox won last year because they were the best team all season long and I would have hated it to go to waste over a fluke play, bad call, etc.

3. My point isn't to suggest one. The league makes too much money off the post season. The World Series winners get the title of World Champs. That's deserved. But all it means is they won an 8 game tournament.

4. I'm always afraid of the Sox. They are a great team. I was ther e last night. When the inning is over and you see "Due up: Konerko, Thome, Dye" it's a bad sign.good post Oblong. I particularly like the part I bolded....I've always thought that those three stuck some fear in the oposition. I am damn glad those guys are on my side. I'd hate to go up against three potential MVPs in a row!

Oblong
07-19-2006, 09:00 PM
It just never dawned on me until I saw the names together on the scoreboard. It's like "Who do you pitch to?" It should almost be illegal to have those 3 together.
Kenny Williams is a genius. Chicago's paying Thome $8 million a year?

Palehose13
07-19-2006, 09:30 PM
It just never dawned on me until I saw the names together on the scoreboard. It's like "Who do you pitch to?" It should almost be illegal to have those 3 together.
Kenny Williams is a genius. Chicago's paying Thome $8 million a year?

Yeah and sometimes it's not good to see Pierzynski and Crede after those guys. Kenny Williams is a great GM. I hope he's around for a few more trophies.

Great pitching tonight from the Tigers. We'll get you tomorrow. :wink:

Blackheart
07-20-2006, 12:29 AM
It just never dawned on me until I saw the names together on the scoreboard. It's like "Who do you pitch to?" It should almost be illegal to have those 3 together.
Kenny Williams is a genius. Chicago's paying Thome $8 million a year? hey dude, why do you come here and act all meek and humble but on the site you moderate you talk smack about the Sox. And no, AJ did not bump Monrow, Monrow backed into AJ.

Oblong
07-20-2006, 06:27 AM
Because on this site I consider myself a guest. You guys can talk the smack.

I can show you some respectful stuff I've posted on Motown. But I don't have to apologize for anything I've written there.

TornLabrum
07-20-2006, 07:17 AM
Personally, I don't care how anyone who posts here acts on another site, as long as they behave themselves here. So let's just not bother to bring that **** up ever again, okay?

jenn2080
07-20-2006, 07:29 AM
hey dude, why do you come here and act all meek and humble but on the site you moderate you talk smack about the Sox. And no, AJ did not bump Monrow, Monrow backed into AJ.

seroiusly what was that all about. they had an a pic and little piece about it in the Red Eye this morning

Mr. White Sox
07-20-2006, 03:46 PM
I think the White Sox take Game 1, despite Garland's bulging ERA and Robertson's previous mastery of the Sox. Why? I just think it happens.

Game 2 goes to the Tigers. I have no confidence in Vazquez at this point, especially against a team with a few power hitters and a record over .500

Game 3 is a tossup. This will sound stupid, but whichever team makes the most mistakes will lose. I think Rogers and Contreras will duel admirably but it will come down to the bullpens and defense.
Zoinks! I'm actually not all that disappointed with what happened in Game 3, aside from Widger's stupid pitch-out throw (which ended up not mattering). Detroit played clean, hard baseball, and the Sox just were a step slow in certain departments. BA put on a show as well; I actually thought the third out of the 9th had a chance. In any other park...

alcentralrace
07-20-2006, 05:57 PM
I agree, Your not playing K.C. anymore buddy, time for them to play a real team that doesn't roll over like a bunch of dogs.

Halarious!!

102605
07-20-2006, 06:06 PM
Halarious!!

I wish I could ban you :dtroll:

CLR01
07-20-2006, 06:09 PM
Halarious!!


Maybe I should just go ahead and ban all of the trash from Motown Sports.

Dan Mega
07-20-2006, 06:14 PM
Still plenty of season left. The Indians were how many games out last year? And look what they did.

.800 ball for the rest of the season sounds good enough to me.:cool:

102605
07-20-2006, 06:14 PM
Maybe I should just go ahead and ban all of the trash from Motown Sports.

You have my vote.

Seriously, after the 1st series win vs. the Sox in 3 years, after taking 2/3 in JULY against the White Sox people begin to creep out of the nowhere.

102605
07-20-2006, 06:16 PM
Halarious!!

and P.S. it is supposed to be Hilarious.

I was almost fooled into thinking the Kitties had a few intelligent fans.

Blackheart
07-20-2006, 09:31 PM
seroiusly what was that all about. they had an a pic and little piece about it in the Red Eye this morning My bad. I was just checking out the game thread over there ( never again btw ) and was offended. I am not a member of that site and dont want to be , so i wasnt going to regester to ask a question. It will not happen again, i plan to put these people on ignore and forget them. Peace out, Bill