PDA

View Full Version : Where Would The Sox Be If The 2005 Team Was Kept Intact?


SluggersAway
07-26-2006, 08:15 PM
Another thread started me wondering about where we would be if we kept the 2005 World Champion team intact (minus a little tinkering) for this year.

There was a ton of talk about how we "couldn't" stand still and "had" to get better. But, this team doesn't look too good at the moment.

You can't discount team chemistry and the swagger of a champion at every position.

Any thoughts?

JB98
07-26-2006, 08:17 PM
Another thread started me wondering about where we would be if we kept the 2005 World Champion team intact (minus a little tinkering) for this year.

There was a ton of talk about how we "couldn't" stand still and "had" to get better. But, this team doesn't look too good at the moment.

You can't discount team chemistry and the swagger of a champion at every position.

Any thoughts?

We'd be worse because the starting pitching has been mediocre at best. Our offense covered up for the pitchers quite a bit the first half of the season. Last year's offense would have struggled to do the same.

BeviBall!
07-26-2006, 08:18 PM
15 back

The pitching would be the same and the offense would be much weaker. I was thinking about this the other day and praised KW we have had the offense to counteract the underachieving starting pitching.

Brian26
07-26-2006, 08:19 PM
I don't think there's any point in trying to second guess what KW did.

This 2006 Sox team is much better than the 2005 talent-wise. The Tigers and Twins are also much better this year than they were last year.

buehrle4cy05
07-26-2006, 08:21 PM
A great example of this is the 2003 Angels. After winning it all in 2002, they effectively stood pat in the offseason, thinking that they could repeat. The Angels finished under .500 in 2003, coming nowhere near the playoffs.

StatHead21
07-26-2006, 08:22 PM
4th place

cheeses_h_rice
07-26-2006, 08:27 PM
Hell, with Geoff Blum, Willie Harris and Carl Everett?

The sky's the ****ing limit.

soxtalker
07-26-2006, 09:18 PM
I suspect that we'd be a LOT further back. The relief pitching MIGHT be a bit better, though I kind of like the adjustments KW has made. Otherwise, I suspect we'd be worse. I guess that this is one lesson that we can see in baseball -- things change pretty quickly. And our performance isn't the only change. Other teams get better, and teams have probably scouted and adjusted the way they play us.

CommanderPudge72
07-26-2006, 09:23 PM
A doughnut with no hole is a Danish......

Think about it, makes sense in this thread:wink:

Just kidding, we would be wayyy back, no offense......

nasox
07-26-2006, 09:23 PM
Who the **** cares?

WS in 05
07-26-2006, 09:27 PM
:vazquez: ---or---:elduque:

Iguana775
07-26-2006, 09:36 PM
Worse. without the extra fire power and with the crappy pitching, this team would be lucky to be .500.

pczarapa
07-26-2006, 09:40 PM
Oh, but if we had Soriano we'd be 10 games up

PAPChiSox729
07-26-2006, 09:45 PM
If we had the same players and they performed like they did last year.... I would say we would be a few games better.

kitekrazy
07-26-2006, 09:50 PM
If we had the same players and they performed like they did last year.... I would say we would be a few games better.

Who would've thought Garland would win 18 games last year? Did anyone think Freddy and Mark would really suck this year?

You hope them some players remain consistent. It doesn't always happen.

Palehose Pete
07-26-2006, 09:50 PM
A doughnut with no hole is a Danish......

And a flute with no holes is a stick.

I agree with a previous poster that we'd be like the '03 Angels if we stayed pat. Of course, at the rate we're losing games, we just may become them if we're not careful...

viagracat
07-26-2006, 09:54 PM
I think the Sox are a little better (on paper) this year with the addition of Thome, but the competition is also much stronger this year. Some very good teams in the AL will not make the playoffs.

SluggersAway
07-26-2006, 10:02 PM
I just think team chemistry is waaay underrated, and it is one of the things that fans have no clue about as they are not in the clubhouse everyday.

Sure, this team looks better on paper, but...etc. etc.

Who knows who motivated who and how everyone interacted with each other. And what effect the changes had on the demeanor of the club as a whole.

last year it all worked out pretty well. I am not stating categorically that I am against the changes KW made, I am just offering a philosophic discussion.

I like the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I also prefaced my comments by allowing for a little "tinkering."

russ99
07-26-2006, 10:04 PM
That's an exercise in futility.

Stop living in the past. Those guys won a World Series, which is great.

But let's pull for the Sox players we have now, who I have no doubt can do as well as last year's team.

SluggersAway
07-26-2006, 10:10 PM
That's an exercise in futility.
Of course it is, but at least you have some data points to base your decision on.

How much info do you have on whether or not Buehrle is injured?

voodoochile
07-26-2006, 10:16 PM
Abbot: "I don't know"

Costello: "Third Place"

Jjav829
07-26-2006, 10:21 PM
It's impossible to say. We caught a lot of breaks last year. We're not catching some of those breaks this year. There's no guarantees that we would have caught the same breaks this year with last year's roster.

kevingrt
07-26-2006, 10:23 PM
I do think it is impossible to put a finger on it, but I would seriously say better off. Something about the mentality of that team and rotation knowing they are going into everyone game and they will come out of the 7th with less then three runs, that made the team great.

Oh for Aaron...

But I do like Thome.

Lip Man 1
07-26-2006, 10:26 PM
If you are not moving forward you're falling behind.

Kenny did what he felt he had to do. He knew how fine the margin was last season between winning the series and not even making the playoffs and he tried to help matters along.

I don't fault him for that.

This team isn't totally struggling because of the overhaul of the roster...it's struggling because they played until October 27th last season and some of the players then participated in that goofy WBC. 2005 was an extremely long season and the Sox simply didn't have a lot of time to rest.

That plus human nature which says it's very hard to have the same motivation, the same drive to get back to the top of the mountain when you have just been there.

Kind of makes what the A's did from 72-74 and the Bulls two time 'three peat' astonishing.

Lip

SluggersAway
07-26-2006, 10:31 PM
2005 was an extremely long season and the Sox simply didn't have a lot of time to rest.

That plus human nature which says it's very hard to have the same motivation, the same drive to get back to the top of the mountain when you have just been there.

A little off base, but I agree with these two reasons as well.

russ99
07-26-2006, 10:41 PM
Of course it is, but at least you have some data points to base your decision on.


OK - here's one: I love Rowand, but with our inconsistent pitching this year and without Thome's insane first half numbers, we'd be playing .500 baseball this year, if not lower. Jim carried the team on his back for a few months. I can only hope he gets the chance to do it again in the playoffs. :D:

As for Buehrle, I think we're all just grasping at straws. There's no real indication he's injured.

As other posters have said, he's having trouble adapting his gameplan after the Yankees figured out (and teed off of) his first-pitch strike strategy.

CaptainBallz
07-26-2006, 10:41 PM
I think people are forgetting that this team---this 2006 team---was the one that was never out of any game a month ago. They had their struggles, their inconsistencies with hitting AND pitching (moreso the pitching), but you could not rule them out of ANY game. Was there talk about chemistry and it not being right then...1.5 games back and 30 games over .500?

This is the same group of guys. The same team. Yes, this is a full-blown slump. Yes, it is up to the team to pull themselves out of it. If they can, it will truly be a testament to how great this team is. When they do, it will only add to the story about how this team, the team that never gave up/ could always come back, did so again AND when it mattered most. Konerko said at the beginning of the season that it will probably look different than last year. There's no way the path could be identical.

This is a better team than last year's. And they'll remember that shortly...

UofCSoxFan
07-26-2006, 10:42 PM
Well seeing how our 3 hitter from last year is no longer in the major leagues (Everett was DFA today) I'd say we'd be in tough shape.

kwolf68
07-26-2006, 10:43 PM
Same place...Pitching hasn't changed much. The horses in our rotation are pitching like mules now.

CLR01
07-27-2006, 01:13 AM
Another thread started me wondering about where we would be if we kept the 2005 World Champion team intact (minus a little tinkering) for this year.

There was a ton of talk about how we "couldn't" stand still and "had" to get better. But, this team doesn't look too good at the moment.

You can't discount team chemistry and the swagger of a champion at every position.

Any thoughts?


Last years team hit a rough patch too and I don't think they would would be any better this year. The division is tougher and some of the pitchers don't seem have "it".

MrX
07-27-2006, 01:27 AM
I just think team chemistry is waaay underrated.
Chemistry isn't going to add 5mph to Garcia's fastball or make Buehrle (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=6De&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Buehrle&spell=1) pitch better.

Take out Thome's bat and replace it with Rowand's .257 avg and 9 homeruns he has so far this year in the NL and this team would be in a world of hurt.

Nellie_Fox
07-27-2006, 01:35 AM
Oh, but if we had Soriano we'd be 10 games upWhat the hell color is that, and what is it supposed to mean?

SluggersAway
07-27-2006, 01:41 AM
Take out Thome's bat and replace it with Rowand's .257 avg and 9 homeruns he has so far this year in the NL and this team would be in a world of hurt.

:hurt

You forgot me, big guy.

MrX
07-27-2006, 02:10 AM
:hurt

You forgot me, big guy.
And people are complaining about the bases being clogged now. Imagine what they would be with him limping around them.

SluggersAway
07-27-2006, 02:40 AM
All I am saying is that it isn't that straightforward.

Thome and Anderson v. Thomas and Rowand

Seems pretty even.

pauliemyhero14
07-27-2006, 02:52 AM
if the sox kept everything the same from 2005 the sox would be like 20 games out cause the sox are living on the long ball and last years team didnt live on the long ball so they would be screwed.:messica

RedHeadPaleHoser
07-27-2006, 06:47 AM
Is this what this has come down to?

KW does major positive work in the offseason, the Sox hit a rough patch and division rivals are playing kickass baseball, and now we second guess? Come on people - sometimes I think the reactions here at this point are worse than last August.

A day off is perfect - reset, fly to Baltimore and rain on the Orioles.

"What we need is a rainout."
"Man, there hasn't been a cloud in the sky in weeks."
"50 bucks says I get us a rainout for tomorrow."
"Oh my goodness!! We got ourselves a natural disaster."

MadetoOrta
07-27-2006, 08:37 AM
Our starters aren't getting the job done like last year. That's the bottom line.

CaptainBallz
07-27-2006, 09:18 AM
if the sox kept everything the same from 2005 the sox would be like 20 games out cause the sox are living on the long ball and last years team didnt live on the long ball so they would be screwed.:messica

From the exhausting runon sentence to the GIANT unnecessary pic of Jessica Alba, I have to say, this post RULES...:thumbsup:

fquaye149
07-27-2006, 09:27 AM
4th place

Honestly this is the Godhonest truth.

Our lineup boils down to Carl+Rowand vs. Thome+Anderson, which gives the advantage to 2006

Our rotation boils down to Vazquez vs. El Duque/McCarthy which gives the advantage to 2005. This is a rather slight adv. in the #5 starter role which doesn't translate to all that many wins (esp. since Vazquez isn't horrible in the wins dpt)

But our bullpen and bench are what make it so obvious we'd be in 4th place this year: If we stood pat, keeping our 2005 team intact our bullpen would be

Jenks
Cotts
Vizcaino
Marte
Politte
McCarthy (when Duque's not hurt)

of those, Jenks and McCarthy would be fairly solid, Cotts would be a moderate question mark, Vizcaino and Marte would be fairly large question marks, and Politte...well Politte pitched himself out of MLB this year.

What that means is that our bullpen would likely be held down by Tracey, Diaz, and Haeger which more or less makes me vomit.

Our bench is likewise nauseating. Cintron and Mackowiack v. Blum, Timo, and Willie?

4th place seems certain.

KMKsuburbannoise
07-27-2006, 09:43 AM
I think we would be around the same. Our pitching is almost the same with the addition of Vasquez. Garland is not a 19 game winner this year but one of our strong points as of late, Buerhle just doesn't have it this year but I think he'll come around, Jose seems to be our rock, Freddie is the same old Freddy, and Javy is kind of unpredictable. If you ask me, I think our pitching is not doing what they have the potential to do. Last year Pods was the best hitter with a 290 average, that proves that our pitching carried us through last year and it just isn't as strong.

BadBobbyJenks
07-27-2006, 07:28 PM
A great example of this is the 2003 Angels. After winning it all in 2002, they effectively stood pat in the offseason, thinking that they could repeat. The Angels finished under .500 in 2003, coming nowhere near the playoffs.



I like the sig but you have two aces of diamonds...

Chips
07-27-2006, 07:30 PM
All I am saying is that it isn't that straightforward.

Thome and Anderson v. Thomas and Rowand

Seems pretty even.
:rolleyes:

Thome replaced Carl Everett.

And still :rolleyes:

Chips
07-27-2006, 07:33 PM
Oh for Aaron...



:rolleyes:Yep, If we had Rowand right now, we'd be in first place :rolleyes:

35th&Shields
07-27-2006, 08:21 PM
It's impossible to say. We caught a lot of breaks last year. We're not catching some of those breaks this year. There's no guarantees that we would have caught the same breaks this year with last year's roster.
The thing about "breaks" are that I think good teams make their own luck. I know what I am going to say next then sounds hypocritical considering the past few series, but I think this team has too much talent to continue to underachieve for their talent level. At some point the law of averages will come into play and all of this "underachieving" will be compensated with some "overachieving." And when this team starts to OVERachieve - look out. They'll be a tough, tough team.

TommyJohn
07-27-2006, 09:23 PM
If the 2005 team were intact Aaron Rowand would have his own cult following.

HawkDJ
07-27-2006, 09:56 PM
This is silly. How can there be any doubt we'd be worse off. The struggling part of the team (the rotation) is essentially the same. Don't tell me Duque would be any better than Vazquez.

And don't tell me the loss of Everett, Thomas, Harris and Blum has so negatively affected the team chemistry that we would've won a few more games with them.

we be jake
07-28-2006, 02:39 AM
Hell, with Geoff Blum, Willie Harris and Carl Everett?

The sky's the ****ing limit.

Do you remember any of those guys making big-time clutch plays last year ? I do ! How's the bench production this year?

BarbG
07-28-2006, 03:03 AM
Dustin Hermanson's 34 saves played a pretty big part in our success last year. If only he could have kept his back intact.

Baby Fisk
07-28-2006, 03:49 AM
If the 2005 team were intact Aaron Rowand would have his own cult following.
Based on the barrage of Rowand threads that dominated the start of the season (so many that an all-encompassing Rowand thread was required), the cult following is there.

Also, Frank would be unhappy about something. Not to knock the big guy, but that almost always seemed to be the way of things.

Also, we would have 94 wins by this point in the season. :redneck

Fake Chet Lemon
07-28-2006, 12:55 PM
Shingo would have at least 40 saves by now, might even be in the starting rotation.

I really miss his intro, would love to see that type of stuff at Grinder bash Saturday.