PDA

View Full Version : 2006 a succesfull season?


soxwon
10-01-2006, 05:20 PM
I got into an arguement with a friend.
i still think this was a succesful season.
Who agreees?
i think most will disagree, but we still won 90 games
and still had the 6th or 7th best record in baseball
if we werent succesfull -neither were the 19 or so other teams with worse records.

whitesoxwilkes
10-01-2006, 05:22 PM
I think it would be more successful if Da Reverand gave a stirring eulogy.

DoItForDanPasqua
10-01-2006, 05:23 PM
You can't go from winning the World Series to finishing in third and call that a success.

ondafarm
10-01-2006, 05:23 PM
With how few 90 win seasons the White Sox have had I have to call this season a success.

dcb56
10-01-2006, 05:24 PM
I got into an arguement with a friend.
i still think this was a succesful season.
Who agreees?
i think most will disagree, but we still won 90 games
and still had the 6th or 7th best record in baseball
if we werent succesfull -neither were the 19 or so other teams with worse records.

I wasn't aware the 6th or 7th best team in baseball was awarded a World Series trophy.

Of course it wasn't a successful season. Any season that doesn't end with a Championship when you have a team with the talent and payroll like the Sox, it must be considered a failure.

sox1970
10-01-2006, 05:27 PM
They went 34-43 the last 77 games. Not a success.

soxwon
10-01-2006, 05:30 PM
I think it would be more successful if Da Reverand gave a stirring eulogy.

ill contact him, he's been in mourning in seclusion for a few weeks now.

SOXandILLINI
10-01-2006, 05:32 PM
a 3rd place finish in any division is not a success, if you think otherwise ask anyone in the organization.

Bucky F. Dent
10-01-2006, 05:33 PM
Before last fall I would have said this was a succesful season, a step in the right direction. After last season, this was a step back.

Still nothing to be embarassed about, teams are constantly moving forward and back in the MLB food chain. But this was a step back.

Jjav829
10-01-2006, 05:33 PM
Anything short of a World Series championship is not a success.

anewman35
10-01-2006, 05:42 PM
It wasn't as horrible a season as many would have you believe, and in fact it was a pretty decent season, but since they didn't make the playoffs, I don't think it was a success.

sox1970
10-01-2006, 05:44 PM
The Tigers went 19-31 their last 50 games. If the Sox would have played a solid 30-20, we'd be going to the playoffs. We just weren't good enough.

cubhater
10-01-2006, 05:50 PM
Anything short of a World Series championship is not a success.

Exactly

I don't care about making the playoffs, winning the division, etc. It's all or nothing with me.

The Sox would've been in the middle of the race for the division and wild card if we only played .500 the second half of the season. We had what seemed like a solid lead for the wild card and flopped. This is not what a championship team is about. We had plenty of opportunities to either put the nail in the coffin for a playoff spot or get back in it and wasted them.

We waited for the Sox to click on all cylinders but it never happend.

Myrtle72
10-01-2006, 05:51 PM
As long as we learn from our mistakes this season and improve for next season, it is a success.

cws05champ
10-01-2006, 05:54 PM
Without a Playoff run to defend the Championship...you can not call this a success! If we went deep into the playoffs and lost, I maybe would say it was satisfying, but not a success.

cbotnyse
10-01-2006, 05:58 PM
I say no. We are a playoff caliber team and we never got it going when it mattered. I cant say its a successful season if we dont, at the very least, give ourselves a chance for a title.

wassagstdu
10-01-2006, 06:02 PM
I't not whether they won or lost, it's how they played the game. Not successful.

ShoelessJoeS
10-01-2006, 06:04 PM
You can't go from winning the World Series to finishing in third and call that a success.Exactly.

They went 34-43 the last 77 games. Not a success.Indeed.

Anything short of a World Series championship is not a success.This pretty much sums it up.

Hitmen77
10-01-2006, 06:07 PM
With how few 90 win seasons the White Sox have had I have to call this season a success.

Is it really that few? They've had 5 since 1990 (six if you count the pace of the '94 team). They've had nine such seasons since the league split into divisions in 1969 (again pro-rating the shortened '94 and '72 seasons). Then add the 3 in a row in the mid-60s. Probably less than the Yankees, Braves, and Red Sox, but I'm guessing that's more frequent than most. At the other end of the spectrum, the Cubs have only had 3 such seasons since 1945.:o:

But, to answer the original quesiton, I vote that that this season is not a success.

sox1970
10-01-2006, 06:11 PM
I know all of the games count, but the Sox only went 76-68 against American League teams. The reason why there are 3 teams from the same division with 90+ wins is interleague play.

FJA
10-01-2006, 06:12 PM
You know why it's not a success? First, look where we were in relation to Detroit at the All-Star Break. Second, look how poorly Detroit played most of the second half. Third, look at where the Sox ended up.

Unlike others, I could have found success even had we made the playoffs and lost, mostly because sometimes **** happens to good teams in the playoffs. But to not make the playoffs when (a) the team in front of you not only backs in, but backs with a stunningly bad record in the last 50 games (for a playoff team) and (b) you have a team as talented as ours, you just can't call it a success.

I think the reason this is even an argument is because, when you look at individual games or stretches, this season was way too fun to believe the third place finish. I think it snuck up on a lot of us, but the writing was on the wall almost all season long.

That's not to mention, 90 wins is not too shabby.

I don't think I'll ever consider this season a success, but if we learn from our mistakes and come out strong next year, I don't think I'll consider it as much of a disappointment either.

oeo
10-01-2006, 06:14 PM
I got into an arguement with a friend.
i still think this was a succesful season.
Who agreees?
i think most will disagree, but we still won 90 games
and still had the 6th or 7th best record in baseball
if we werent succesfull -neither were the 19 or so other teams with worse records.

If they were the Royals, Tampa Bay, or the Flubs, or any other crappy team, a 90-win season would be a success. But they won the World Series last year; anything short of another championship was a failure.

PaulDrake
10-01-2006, 06:19 PM
For me, not only was it not a success, it was an out and out downer.

thomas35forever
10-01-2006, 06:22 PM
I'll call it a success even though it wasn't a successful one. It's kind of like Apollo 13. I'll still look back on this season as the one where we were able to call ourselves kings of the baseball world.

SoxEd
10-01-2006, 06:31 PM
90 wins is nice, but....

Finishing third in the Division is, to my mind at least, not as frustrating as finishing second & then losing out on the Wildcard to a team from another Division, but coming off the back of last year's Glorious Triumph it is still, to use an English expression, pants.
:whiner:

Hopefully, this result will be just as disappointing for the players as it is for us fans, and motivate them to tear the bejayzus out of the opposition in 2007.

As KW says, we have the core of a bloody good team here, and if they can get some of the 05 fire back, then the 07 Sox ought to be contenders again.

Slainte,
Ed.

soxwon
10-01-2006, 06:37 PM
Nobody Repeats so is it really a surprise?

SpartanSoxFan
10-01-2006, 06:39 PM
I would say if the Sox put themselves in position to at least attempt to defend their title, I would say it would be a sucessful season. They didn't, so it wasn't.

SOXSINCE'70
10-01-2006, 06:42 PM
The White Sox did not win the WC,nor did they win the A.L.Central.
Finishing in third place is considered a failure,at least in my eyes.:(:

35th&Shields
10-01-2006, 06:56 PM
No way this season was a success. This team was the defending World Series champs and with the addition of Thome in the middle of the lineup and Javier Vasquez as our No. 5 pitcher we were positioned to repeat. Anything less than another World Series championship would have been something of a "failure" in meeting this goal. When you compound not meeting this goal with not even making the playoffs and coming in 3rd in the AL Central, if the options are only "success" or "failure," then unfortunatly we were a failure.

ondafarm
10-01-2006, 07:38 PM
Anybody who says not winning the championship makes this season not a success has been spoiled. Maybe before the divisions split just getting in the playoffs was the metric of success. With wildcards winning most of the World Series in this century, just doing well is the metric I use.

Lip Man 1
10-01-2006, 07:53 PM
It's almost impossible to get to, let alone win a World Series in consecutive seasons. Those who say otherwise and using that as the sole determination for a 'successful' season or not are being very foolish.

This season was a major disappointment because the Sox SHOULD have gone to the post season for the first time in consecutive years in franchise history.

Failure however is a totally different scenario.

90 wins is not an 'unsuccessful' season. It was not a failure.

Lip

Hunker down
10-01-2006, 08:02 PM
Not a succesfull season. And I'm thinking this is the same thing Kenny Williams is thinking also. I would much rather have Kenny as my GM this winner than the clown on the northside.

jenn2080
10-01-2006, 08:45 PM
You should have seen the people in front of the hotel telling Kenny how GREAT the season was.

Grzegorz
10-01-2006, 08:56 PM
The season was a disappointment; to label it any other way is just spin.

southside rocks
10-01-2006, 09:00 PM
The season was a disappointment; to label it any other way is just spin.

For me, the season was fun. The results were disappointing. And that's not spin -- there is a difference. If I HAD to have a WS win every year to enjoy baseball, I'd have quit this fan thing decades ago.

From someone who's rooted since 1967: Thanks, White Sox, I'm sorry it's over so soon, but I had a good time in '06, even though you broke my heart. :D:

TheOldRoman
10-01-2006, 09:38 PM
2006 was a complete and utter failure.

The only players on the Sox who didn't suck for an extended period of time were Crede, Dye, and Jenks.
The "5 aces" all had higher ERAs than the year before, and only Garland stepped up down the stretch.
Thome has 30 homers before the AS break, and 12 afterwards, with his average dropping 20 points.
The offense couldn't hit mediocre pitchers, they couldn't hit horrible pitchers, they couldn't hit rookie call-ups, they couldn't hit any lefties.
The hitters got worse and worse as the year went on. They couldn't take walks (other than Thome) they swung at everything two feet outside, but took every single meatball for a strike.
Every batter went up there trying to hit a homer every time. Nobody hit the other way, everyone just wanted to pad their stats.
Cotts got worse (unexpected) and so did Politte (expected), but nobody could have expected just how badly they would perform. Then the Sox got Riske, who had been good, and he pitched like crap.
The "phenom" Brandon McCarthy seemingly pouted the whole year instead of sucking it up and using this year as a learning experience. He was inexplicably a gascan out of the bullpen.
Uribe took all the momentum he built in September and October, and threw it out the window. He had a horrible year at the plate, and a down year defensively.
The coaches sucked also. It is ultimately the players' responsibility to care and to get themselves ready to play, but if the team is sucking for an extended period of time, the coaches have to change that somehow.
Ozzie made a lot of bad decisions this year. The majority of them were putting Mackowiak in CF repeatedly.
This team was horrible in the second half, and they looked like the didn't care most of the time. Every time they got punched in the mouth they cowered instead of fighting back.
They lost countless games, against bad teams and good ones, that they should have won.
... Oh, and the defense sucked, too.

Basically, this team failed every way it could. KW took the world champs, improved them significantly, and they finished in third place. The playoffs are a crapshoot, so I could have lived with the Sox losing in the playoffs. Third place in unacceptable. KW might be the only guy in the lockerroom who realizes that.

October26
10-01-2006, 09:45 PM
2006 was a complete and utter failure.

The only players on the Sox who didn't suck for an extended period of time were Crede, Dye, and Jenks.
The "5 aces" all had higher ERAs than the year before, and only Garland stepped up down the stretch.
Thome has 30 homers before the AS break, and 12 afterwards, with his average dropping 20 points.
The offense couldn't hit mediocre pitchers, they couldn't hit horrible pitchers, they couldn't hit rookie call-ups, they couldn't hit any lefties.
The hitters got worse and worse as the year went on. They couldn't take walks (other than Thome) they swung at everything two feet outside, but took every single meatball for a strike.
Every batter went up there trying to hit a homer every time. Nobody hit the other way, everyone just wanted to pad their stats.
Cotts got worse (unexpected) and so did Politte (expected), but nobody could have expected just how badly they would perform. Then the Sox got Riske, who had been good, and he pitched like crap.
The "phenom" Brandon McCarthy seemingly pouted the whole year instead of sucking it up and using this year as a learning experience. He was inexplicably a gascan out of the bullpen.
Uribe took all the momentum he built in September and October, and threw it out the window. He had a horrible year at the plate, and a down year defensively.
The coaches sucked also. It is ultimately the players' responsibility to care and to get themselves ready to play, but if the team is sucking for an extended period of time, the coaches have to change that somehow.
Ozzie made a lot of bad decisions this year. The majority of them were putting Mackowiak in CF repeatedly.
This team was horrible in the second half, and they looked like the didn't care most of the time. Every time they got punched in the mouth they cowered instead of fighting back.
They lost countless games, against bad teams and good ones, that they should have won.
... Oh, and the defense sucked, too.

Basically, this team failed every way it could. KW took the world champs, improved them significantly, and they finished in third place. The playoffs are a crapshoot, so I could have lived with the Sox losing in the playoffs. Third place in unacceptable. KW might be the only guy in the lockerroom who realizes that.

I could not have said it any better myself. Agree 100%. Thank you. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

soxchick20
10-01-2006, 10:11 PM
Complete Failure? No. Unsuccessful? Yes.

"on paper" we were supposed to have the best team in baseball.

at least the 90 win goal was achieved, but more should have happened.

chisoxmike
10-01-2006, 10:13 PM
No. This season was a failure.

In NO WAY did I expect this team to win the series again, but I did expect them to make the playoffs and I think that's what the Sox themselves were expecting.

Failure.

chisoxfanatic
10-01-2006, 10:38 PM
For this season to have been a success, they must've at least got the wild card. Since they don't even have the chance to defend their title, I'd say it is not a success. They played very lax during the second half of the season, and there were lots of times I didn't even sense any sort of exigency to win or play to their potentials.

I'm sure KW will be back at it during the offseason, and we'll see a great team out there when it's time to start things up next April.

SluggersAway
10-01-2006, 10:52 PM
2006 was a complete and utter failure.

The only players on the Sox who didn't suck for an extended period of time were Crede, Dye, and Jenks.
The "5 aces" all had higher ERAs than the year before, and only Garland stepped up down the stretch.
Thome has 30 homers before the AS break, and 12 afterwards, with his average dropping 20 points.
The offense couldn't hit mediocre pitchers, they couldn't hit horrible pitchers, they couldn't hit rookie call-ups, they couldn't hit any lefties.
The hitters got worse and worse as the year went on. They couldn't take walks (other than Thome) they swung at everything two feet outside, but took every single meatball for a strike.
Every batter went up there trying to hit a homer every time. Nobody hit the other way, everyone just wanted to pad their stats.
Cotts got worse (unexpected) and so did Politte (expected), but nobody could have expected just how badly they would perform. Then the Sox got Riske, who had been good, and he pitched like crap.
The "phenom" Brandon McCarthy seemingly pouted the whole year instead of sucking it up and using this year as a learning experience. He was inexplicably a gascan out of the bullpen.
Uribe took all the momentum he built in September and October, and threw it out the window. He had a horrible year at the plate, and a down year defensively.
The coaches sucked also. It is ultimately the players' responsibility to care and to get themselves ready to play, but if the team is sucking for an extended period of time, the coaches have to change that somehow.
Ozzie made a lot of bad decisions this year. The majority of them were putting Mackowiak in CF repeatedly.
This team was horrible in the second half, and they looked like the didn't care most of the time. Every time they got punched in the mouth they cowered instead of fighting back.
They lost countless games, against bad teams and good ones, that they should have won.
... Oh, and the defense sucked, too.

Basically, this team failed every way it could. KW took the world champs, improved them significantly, and they finished in third place. The playoffs are a crapshoot, so I could have lived with the Sox losing in the playoffs. Third place in unacceptable. KW might be the only guy in the lockerroom who realizes that.

I could quibble over a few things here and there, but I don't see the point. Most of what you have posted is definitely true.

Considering the money that was thrown at this team and the talent on the field, no one can consider third place a success, even if they got to 90 wins.

JR didn't spill millions for a piss poor second half and third place. The sad thing is people filled the seats to see crappy ball for the last half and no possibility of defending the championship. If I was a season ticket holder I'd be a lot more pissed off.

chaerulez
10-01-2006, 11:03 PM
Success is defined by winning championships. We didn't even make the playoffs. We finished 3rd in the division. It was a underachieving season.

shoelessshaun27!
10-01-2006, 11:17 PM
I wanted to at least get back in the playoffs.

Sox-o-matic
10-01-2006, 11:52 PM
Had KW not traded for Thome, Vazquez, Thornton, Cintron, Mackowiak, Riske, or MacDougal and had we still finished with 90 wins, I'd call it a success.

With the team we have? Hell no. This team was very capable of winning more than 100 games this year and ended up finishing third in the division, looking up at two teams they should have run away from in August.

gaelhound
10-01-2006, 11:55 PM
As long as we learn from our mistakes this season and improve for next season, it is a success.
It is what we do with this season and the motivation to return to the pinnacle that will really measure this season as a success or failure. I am confident this season is an aberration and winning it next year will show that!

jabrch
10-02-2006, 12:45 AM
I had a great time this season - went to 37 games, and had a blast. Yeah, I wish we were still playing, but the team is still a good team. It's still well positioned for next year. It wasn't a WS win, but it was still a great season.

If you can't enjoy the game when you have a team that wins 90 games, then I'm sorry for you.

That said, no - it was not a success. It was fun - but not nearly as fun as last year.

ws05champs
10-02-2006, 12:55 AM
If I considered this season a success I would also have to feel that no improvements need to be made to this team. Why would anyone trifle with success? Of course there are improvements that need to be made to this team so this season can not be a success.

Professional sports are harsh and you are either a winner or a loser. Today at the end of the season, the Sox are losers.

IowaSox1971
10-02-2006, 02:36 AM
We ended the regular season where our record shows that we were one of the top five or six teams in baseball. So, in that sense, it was a success. We're definitely better than the Cardinals, Padres and Dodgers, and all three of them made the playoffs, and I'm sure they're being considered a success.

The Cardinals won a division this year with 83 wins. Give me a break. The Cardinals dropped 17 wins from their total of last season, but they're still, in some people's eyes, a success, especially if they win a playoff round, or two, or three. Meanwhile, our 90-win season is considered a failure in the eyes of some "experts."

Is it necessarily our fault that MLB is so AL-heavy this year? On top of that, we took every team's best shot this season, because we were the defending champs. With all that in mind, I think the season should be considered a success. The way MLB and the divisions are set up just didn't work for us this year.

mccoydp
10-02-2006, 08:14 AM
90 and 72? That's a really good record. But only good enough for third place in the Comedy Central, and no playoff run to even attempt to defend the World Championship.

Overall, not a success.

alohafri
10-02-2006, 08:37 AM
I find it difficult to call a 90 win season a complete failure. This is the second time in our history that we had back to back 90 win seasons. We won 90 games despite three of our starters underachieving. Was it what we expected? Of course not, but it was not the complete failure some have claimed.

jenn2080
10-02-2006, 08:45 AM
I find it difficult to call a 90 win season a complete failure. This is the second time in our history that we had back to back 90 win seasons. We won 90 games despite three of our starters underachieving. Was it what we expected? Of course not, but it was not the complete failure some have claimed.


You said what I feel. I am not warm fuzzies that we didnt make the playoffs, but I do not think that the season was a total wash.

Hangar18
10-02-2006, 09:14 AM
I find it difficult to call a 90 win season a complete failure..


growing up and watching SOX baseball, I always set 90 wins as the benchmark for calling us a pretty good team. Unfortuneately, as early as the 3rd week of April, we saw the bar get raised. And the SOX werent up to par with the new order in the Central.

AuroraSoxFan
10-02-2006, 09:21 AM
Winning 90 games is not easy to do, anywhere. Any league, any division. But I still say we should have won more. I'd call it a total success if we won 90 while battling a ton of injuries, lack of talent, whatever else. But we had everything we needed to win at least 96-98. So while the Sox we no joke in 2006, they still could have done quite a bit better. What bugs me most is that they had all the resources to make another solid run.

oddlot
10-02-2006, 09:49 AM
Baseball is part of the entertainment business. Did the team make money? Were the fans entertained?

I think the answers are yes, and therefore the year was a success.

itsnotrequired
10-02-2006, 09:49 AM
Winning 90 games is not easy to do, anywhere. Any league, any division. But I still say we should have won more. I'd call it a total success if we won 90 while battling a ton of injuries, lack of talent, whatever else. But we had everything we needed to win at least 96-98. So while the Sox we no joke in 2006, they still could have done quite a bit better. What bugs me most is that they had all the resources to make another solid run.

90 wins is a fabulous benchmark but without postseason play, it feels a little empty. I'm more excited that three 90-win teams came out of the AL Central. That's the first time since 2002 that a division has featured three 90-win teams (AL West and NL West). The time before that was 1989, back when there were only two divisions per league.

ws05champs
10-02-2006, 10:58 AM
Baseball is part of the entertainment business. Did the team make money? Were the fans entertained?

I think the answers are yes, and therefore the year was a success.
Depends on what the goals of the organization are. The Cubs would certainly consider your criteria a success. JR makes his money through real estate and he pumps the profits from the Sox back into the organization. KW and Ozzie's stated goal was to at least win the division. From their point of view it was a failure.

While I enjoyed watching and going to many of the games I did (wish I didn't see the games where we blew it), I will not be at the Cell during October. The season was a failure from many perspectives.

Moses_Scurry
10-02-2006, 11:16 AM
I think it is very possible to have a "successful season" without winning the world series or even making the playoffs. I would base it on the Results:Expectations ratio coupled with the post season results.

My top 5 successful seasons in my lifetime as a Sox Fan (since '81):

1. 2005 obviously - not only did they win it all, but the Results:Expectations ratio was also very high.
2. 1990 - After horrible years of the Fregosi era, the 1990 team had nothing to suggest it would win 94 games. The Results:Expectations ratio was through the roof!
3. 1983 - I don't rememer 1982 very much, but I don't think they were too bad, so the R:E ratio wasn't as high as 1990. They won a game in the post season, which puts them ahead of 2000.
3a. 1993 - R:E ratio was about average because everyone expected them to win the division that year. Winning 2 games in the playoffs puts them on the list.
4. 2000 - The R:E ratio was high, but the late '90's teams were not nearly as bad as the late '80's teams and had alot of potential building up (Maggs, CLee, Sirotka, etc.) The playoff sweep puts them behind the other playoff years.

Now for the top five least successful.

1. 1994 - a cancelled postseason trumps all other factors
2. 2006 - very low R:E ratio. No postseason.
3abcd - 1984, 1991, 1995, 2001 - expected them to build on the previous year's success and they fell flat on their faces.

Most of the years in between, they finished close to expectation I think

johnr1note
10-02-2006, 11:35 AM
90 wins is a fabulous benchmark but without postseason play, it feels a little empty. I'm more excited that three 90-win teams came out of the AL Central. That's the first time since 2002 that a division has featured three 90-win teams (AL West and NL West). The time before that was 1989, back when there were only two divisions per league.

But let's factor in interleague play. The Twins were 16-2 against the NL. The Tigers were 15-3. The Sox were 14-4. Heck, the Royals were 10-8 against the NL! (all of this primarily vs. NL Central teams). I would wager that if there was no interleauge play, and these three 90 win teams had to play those 18 games vs the tougher AL West and East, we would have only one or possible none -- 90 win teams in the AL Central that is. So are we really THAT successful with our back to back 90 win seasons, when this year, 14 of those wins arguably came against inferior competition?

MrT27
10-02-2006, 11:39 AM
Its not a success because we didn't win it all, only 1 team can really say their season was a success. But it was a good season. Dissapointing yes but still good.

itsnotrequired
10-02-2006, 11:46 AM
But let's factor in interleague play. The Twins were 16-2 against the NL. The Tigers were 15-3. The Sox were 14-4. Heck, the Royals were 10-8 against the NL! (all of this primarily vs. NL Central teams). I would wager that if there was no interleauge play, and these three 90 win teams had to play those 18 games vs the tougher AL West and East, we would have only one or possible none -- 90 win teams in the AL Central that is. So are we really THAT successful with our back to back 90 win seasons, when this year, 14 of those wins arguably came against inferior competition?

But you could play this game all day. The Sox lost three games to the Cubs and Pirates, the two worst teams in an already crummy NL. I thought these guys were inferior? The Royals were 10-8 against the NL Central but the Sox were only 11-8 against the Royals. So what does this stat say? The Sox swept the Twins and Tigers (twice), they took 2-3 from the Yankees in NY, etc.

No doubt that interleague play helped three AL Central teams reach 90 wins but it is still a rare feat, regardless of the team strengths in a particular season.

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 12:46 PM
Aloha:

The Sox have had back to back (or more) 90 win seasons four times in their history not two as you stated.

Lip

STRETCH!!!
10-02-2006, 01:07 PM
In my mind, if you make the playoffs, you have been successful. If you don't, you haven't.

The only possible exceptions would be a team that makes the playoffs a bunch of years in a row but always makes an early exit, or a team that is so pitifully bad the prior year and improves by 30 games but falls short, but has a lot of up and coming players.

A successful season is when you make the playoffs. A successful postseason is win you win it all. Anything else can certainly have its moments and be fun, but in the end is not a success.

INSox56
10-02-2006, 01:08 PM
Failure, plain and simple. When a team this "good" has a record worse than the WORST TEAM IN THE NL in the 2nd half *cough* scrubs....that's a failure.

spiffie
10-02-2006, 02:41 PM
I find it difficult to call a 90 win season a complete failure. This is the second time in our history that we had back to back 90 win seasons. We won 90 games despite three of our starters underachieving. Was it what we expected? Of course not, but it was not the complete failure some have claimed.

I only see in black and white, so either you do or you don't. 'You win a championship or you don't, and if you don't, the grade is an 'F,' regardless of the different reasons for it. It's funny because every day that we lose, I feel like I haven't brought in the right ingredients for us to win. I feel like it all rests on my shoulders. So when I hear Ozzie say it's his fault ... the way I look at it is the buck stops at my desk.

So says the guy in charge. I tend to agree with him, and think that it's a damn good thing someone like him is in charge instead of the folks who look at a third place finish and say "Oh well, **** happens, better luck next year." I want a guy who sees a third place finish as a shameful failure which had best not be repeated next year.

rdwj
10-02-2006, 02:48 PM
Absolutely NOT a success

This team was built not just to win the division, but to repeat as World Champs. They fell WELL short of that goal. If they would have made it to the post season my opinion would probably be different, but there is no way I'd EVER consider a 3rd place finish a success.

palehozenychicty
10-02-2006, 03:37 PM
I would say if the Sox put themselves in position to at least attempt to defend their title, I would say it would be a sucessful season. They didn't, so it wasn't.

Indeed. This team was miles better than Detoilet and couldn't get in. A failure, for sure.

Frontman
10-03-2006, 09:49 PM
I got into an arguement with a friend.
i still think this was a succesful season.
Who agreees?
i think most will disagree, but we still won 90 games
and still had the 6th or 7th best record in baseball
if we werent succesfull -neither were the 19 or so other teams with worse records.

It's not a case of the season being successful. The team set a goal to return to post-season competition. They did not do that. So, they were not succesful in their goal. However, it was a winning season, (18 games over .500; 90 wins. Like you said, 19 or so other teams would of loved that.)

To me, the "Home Run or nothing" mentality isn't going to do much for most Sox fans. To only be happy if the team wins it all, 99% of the time you probably will be disappointed.

But to me, it was a winning season, with competitive, meaningful games all the way until the last week.

Front

Georgey3085
10-05-2006, 05:00 PM
I got into an arguement with a friend.
i still think this was a succesful season.
Who agreees?
i think most will disagree, but we still won 90 games
and still had the 6th or 7th best record in baseball
if we werent succesfull -neither were the 19 or so other teams with worse records.

It's only a successful year when you win a world series. Anything less is ALWAYS unsuccessful. Why do you play the game? To win. So...thats it.

Tragg
10-07-2006, 12:23 PM
It's not successful when the team with the most talent can't make the playoffs.

I think Guillen needs to give his ego a rest next season. Our best players need to play.
Good managers handle personalities.

ondafarm
10-07-2006, 09:35 PM
There were a lot of things which kept this team out of the playoffs. Some of which could have been prevented, others which couldn't. I think first and foremost, the starting pitchers appeared pooped from the extended run last season. They all got a month's less rest than the Twins or Tigers staffs. I wouldn't trade what they did in 2005 for anything so I call that particular facet, unpreventable.

Trav
10-07-2006, 09:44 PM
There were a lot of things which kept this team out of the playoffs. Some of which could have been prevented, others which couldn't. I think first and foremost, the starting pitchers appeared pooped from the extended run last season. They all got a month's less rest than the Twins or Tigers staffs. I wouldn't trade what they did in 2005 for anything so I call that particular facet, unpreventable.


Williams brought up the idea of a 6 man rotation to Guillen, Cooper and the starting pitchers in spring training. Williams was worried about what you just mentioned along with Garcia playing in Bud-light's Classic. The vote was a unanimous ''NO". Do you think that would have helped despite the fact that Garcia and Vasquez looked pretty good during the last month or so of the season?