PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Analysis


Lip Man 1
09-23-2006, 10:35 PM
Tonight Mark Gonzales has his look at what went wrong and why regarding the 2006 White Sox.

I think it is very good and well thought out.

For what it may be worth to you:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-060923soxwrong,1,7666912.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip

Frontman
09-23-2006, 10:43 PM
Tonight Mark Gonzales has his look at what went wrong and why regarding the 2006 White Sox.

I think it is very good and well thought out.

For what it may be worth to you:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-060923soxwrong,1,7666912.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Lip


Gonzales broke it down pretty definitively. Thanks for the link.

Front

Myrtle72
09-23-2006, 10:55 PM
Definately a good description of what went wrong this seaon and how it was different from last year.

I still believe that the reason all of that happened was because Buehrle wasn't allowed to slip n'slide. This one instance was the catalyst for all the other mishaps during the season. When the fun was taken out of the game, the Sox were no longer able to play with the passion they had last year.

Okay. So maybe my opinion is a little drastic. I understand that. Maybe this didn't cause everything that went wrong. But to me, it represents the problem with this years team, it represents the fact that they had little to no passion or energy towards the end. Really, these kinds of small things go a long way.

Fake Chet Lemon
09-23-2006, 11:39 PM
Good article, but could have been more in-depth. I suppose the writers will wait for the season to end first.

I know it's minor compared to the other issues, but Jory Cora better not be next years 3B coach. Hard enough to beat a MLB team, don't need coaches giving games and momentum away.

I get the feeling the team felt it could "turn it on" when they really needed to. Funny how those teams usually never get it turned on though.

caulfield12
09-24-2006, 12:06 AM
Consider this progression of earned-run averages—4.49, 3.69, 4.54, 4.01, 4.09.

Which one doesn't quite fit? That would be the 3.69, which was the combined earned-run averages of White Sox starters Mark Buehrle, Jose Contreras, Freddy Garcia, Jon Garland and Javier Vazquez in 2005.

Those other marks are their combined totals in 2006, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. So instead of wondering why the Sox's starting rotation has underachieved in defense of the World Series title—was it the extra workload, the off-season banquet circuit or the sense of fulfillment?—perhaps the question should be why were the starters so good a year ago?

from chicagosports.com (phil rogers)


By the way, Cora is a candidate for both the Marlins and the Cubs jobs. Although I doubt he will get either one, that could "cure" one problem, although I hardly think he is one of the biggest.

Craig Grebeck
09-24-2006, 12:08 AM
Missing mojo? That's awful. Our pitching sucked this year.

Myrtle72
09-24-2006, 01:30 AM
Missing mojo? That's awful. Our pitching sucked this year.

and that "missing mojo" was missing for a reason. Because the Sox we're drained of all their energy and fun - they were just going through the motions this year.

Flight #24
09-24-2006, 09:23 AM
Consider this progression of earned-run averages—4.49, 3.69, 4.54, 4.01, 4.09.

Which one doesn't quite fit? That would be the 3.69, which was the combined earned-run averages of White Sox starters Mark Buehrle, Jose Contreras, Freddy Garcia, Jon Garland and Javier Vazquez in 2005.

Those other marks are their combined totals in 2006, 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively. So instead of wondering why the Sox's starting rotation has underachieved in defense of the World Series title—was it the extra workload, the off-season banquet circuit or the sense of fulfillment?—perhaps the question should be why were the starters so good a year ago?

from chicagosports.com (phil rogers)


By the way, Cora is a candidate for both the Marlins and the Cubs jobs. Although I doubt he will get either one, that could "cure" one problem, although I hardly think he is one of the biggest.

I saw that too. It is IMO misleading because there are 2 of the primary culprits that you could reasonably expect to improve significantly from 04 to 05 (and to 06): Contreras (acclimation, comfort) and Garland (experience, development). Add in that Vazquez ERA in '05 was in the JV-NL and that he replaced a guy in El Duque who didn't have a stellar year as a starter.

The guy who underachieved was Buehrle, who had a number of years in the range of his '05. Garcia as well, but he seemed to turn it around late. Contreras & Garland were solid and Vazuez pretty much as expected - started slow and came on late.

rocky biddle
09-24-2006, 10:46 AM
He forgot to mention that the main reason for the Sox slide was Ozzie's slur of Mariotti.

Never fear, I'm sure the windsock will repackage this column as his own next week. Only he'll add that little tidbit, plus a few unoriginal, unfunny "Moronisims" like Blizzard of Oz to make it his own.

As much as I hate the Tribune Co., the Suntimes is an absolute joke in comparison.

ws05champs
09-24-2006, 04:43 PM
He forgot to mention that the main reason for the Sox slide was Ozzie's slur of Mariotti.

While I don't believe it was the slur itself, I really feel the resulting hype and sensitivity training took a lot of the fun out of Ozzie and the ball club. Same with the haircuts and the slip-and-slide. It's not a major reason but they were made to "act like adults" and not the people who they are - the ones that got them to the World Series.

Also no one mentions the babies. The families of White Sox players had 3 babies toward the end of last year's season. This year there were none. What does this tell us?

FielderJones
09-24-2006, 04:49 PM
Also no one mentions the babies. The families of White Sox players had 3 babies toward the end of last year's season. This year there were none. What does this tell us?

The guys weren't getting enough because their wives were too tired taking care of babies?

soxfanatlanta
09-24-2006, 04:55 PM
Also no one mentions the babies. The families of White Sox players had 3 babies toward the end of last year's season. This year there were none. What does this tell us?

It tells us nothing.

hi im skot
09-24-2006, 05:14 PM
It tells us nothing.

Exactly.

Craig Grebeck
09-24-2006, 07:46 PM
Stats are the only concrete evidence. Pitching sucked, end of story. I don't care if they were forced to act like gentlemen, it was the pitching.

markopat
09-24-2006, 07:58 PM
I thought that was a pretty accurate article...I really believe it is about the missing intensity. I would love to see how many runs we gave up and scored in the first 3 innings vs. last season. There were a fair amount of games where we found the intensity after the 4th...but it was too late. Last year we went in to the games with intensity. We need that back!

PEACE!

pearso66
09-24-2006, 10:19 PM
I thought that was a pretty accurate article...I really believe it is about the missing intensity. I would love to see how many runs we gave up and scored in the first 3 innings vs. last season. There were a fair amount of games where we found the intensity after the 4th...but it was too late. Last year we went in to the games with intensity. We need that back!

PEACE!


You're exactly right. There were a lot of games where the Sox were down this year before even getting a chance to hit. Last year they seemed to start hitting in the 1st and on some days, not stop.

Granted there were quite a few games where the Sox scored first, and scored a lot, and then pitching (Garcia it seemed like mostly) immediately gave the runs back up.

What does that tell me? eh, seems like our pitching sucked. Man my mind flip flopped all while writing this post.