PDA

View Full Version : The Sox and Atlanta of the 90s


PennStater98r
12-20-2006, 11:15 AM
So, I was thinking about the Sox of recent years and the Braves of the 90s. I think that we have some similarities. Anyone else care to weigh in?

Remember - the reason the Braves ran off so many division titles was due to the starting pitching - and I still believe that to be our strong suit. I am starting to feel more comfortable with moving a starting pitcher here and there from the team - as I can remember the Braves moving Neagle the in the off season after he finished in the top five for Cy Young. The Braves knew that Glavine, Maddux and Smoltz were their guys.

Anyway - discuss.

Evman5
12-20-2006, 11:18 AM
I'll take 13 or 14 straight division titles, which ever it was!

soxfan13
12-20-2006, 11:20 AM
I'll take 13 or 14 straight division titles, which ever it was!

The Braves were horrible they only won one world series:rolleyes:

ondafarm
12-20-2006, 12:43 PM
The Braves always seemed to have at least two guys with .400+ OBP who got on-base a lot and scored a lot of runs, especially those scrappy, hard-to-get runs. They could win the close games when runs were scarce as well as hit homers and win when runs were plentiful. They also had a great pitching coach.

SOXPHILE
12-20-2006, 12:48 PM
I think the Braves and White Sox rank #1 and #2 as far as total regular season victories between 1990-1999.

PennStater98r
12-20-2006, 12:54 PM
I think the Braves and White Sox rank #1 and #2 as far as total regular season victories between 1990-1999.

I think the Yankees had more than the Sox - but not positive without doing the math.

HomeFish
12-20-2006, 12:57 PM
With all due respect, we have no right to compare ourselves to a team that won over a dozen consecutive division championships. Zilch. Zero. Zippo. We have not come close to doing anything ff that nature.

The only in common we have with the Braves is that we've only won one World Series in the recent past.

goon
12-20-2006, 01:02 PM
I think the Braves and White Sox rank #1 and #2 as far as total regular season victories between 1990-1999.


the sox are 4th on the list behind new york, atlanta and someone else...

jortafan
12-20-2006, 01:18 PM
The Braves were horrible they only won one world series:rolleyes:

Time for me to stir up trouble by saying there's absolutely no need to put that in teal.

Division titles are cute, but they don't mean all that much. Heck, even the Cubs win division titles every now and then, and that does not detract at all from the fact they have not won a pennant since 1945 or a World Series since 1908.

The fact that the Braves went through this "historic" winning period and only managed one World Series victory is a blot on their record. Of course, they also won five National League pennants during that time period. Those are the relevant numbers, not the 14 division titles in 15 seasons (we all remember why 1994 doesn't count for anything).

crazyozzie02
12-20-2006, 02:08 PM
the sox are 4th on the list behind new york, atlanta and someone else...

The Cubs?

soxfan13
12-20-2006, 02:23 PM
Time for me to stir up trouble by saying there's absolutely no need to put that in teal.

Division titles are cute, but they don't mean all that much. Heck, even the Cubs win division titles every now and then, and that does not detract at all from the fact they have not won a pennant since 1945 or a World Series since 1908.

The fact that the Braves went through this "historic" winning period and only managed one World Series victory is a blot on their record. Of course, they also won five National League pennants during that time period. Those are the relevant numbers, not the 14 division titles in 15 seasons (we all remember why 1994 doesn't count for anything).

Everything very true, but they were good because at least they had a shot every year

DannyCaterFan
12-20-2006, 02:27 PM
I think the Braves and White Sox rank #1 and #2 as far as total regular season victories between 1990-1999.

I wonder where the White Sox rank in total wins and losses since 1990? We would have to be one of the better teams in the Majors.

rdivaldi
12-20-2006, 02:55 PM
I wonder where the White Sox rank in total wins and losses since 1990? We would have to be one of the better teams in the Majors.

We're fifth overall:

1) ATL: 1575- 1111
2) NYY: 1530- 1153
3) BOS: 1448- 1240
4) OAK: 1437- 1250
5) CHW: 1433- 1252

rdivaldi
12-20-2006, 02:57 PM
the sox are 4th on the list behind new york, atlanta and someone else...

Cleveland, actually.

ewokpelts
12-20-2006, 03:06 PM
Cleveland, actually.
i dont see cleveland on that list above you

JungleJimR
12-20-2006, 03:30 PM
I really hope that you Dye hard Sox fans do not get into that "you're not really a great team until you win a bunch of World Series". Then we start sounding like Yankee fans - and how bad is that! - And I must say that with living in NYC, I just love watching them loose.

Look, if this past year (and many others in the recent past) should tell us is that - JUST GET INTO THE POST SEASON - because after that anything can happen! Just get into the playoffs and let the enjoyment begin.

The Braves had wonderful teams during the last 15 years and the key was starting pitching of course. They did have one weakness that came back to bite them repeatedly in the playoffs and World Series and that was a really reliable closer - The one year they won it against Cleveland, Wohrlers had a great second half of a year. The most exciting year was the '91 "last to first" series with Twins - Went 7 games with the 7th won by the Twins in the 10th 1-0, Jack Morris beating John Smoltz.

rdivaldi
12-20-2006, 03:36 PM
i dont see cleveland on that list above you

That list is for 1990- 2006.

From 1990 to 1999 Cleveland is above us.

Evman5
12-20-2006, 03:46 PM
I really hope that you Dye hard Sox fans do not get into that "you're not really a great team until you win a bunch of World Series".


Did you do that on purpose? Just curious. Jermaine is just permantly in all our minds!

JungleJimR
12-20-2006, 03:57 PM
I guess on purpose since I first thought of die hard - but it just seemed appropriate given the audience.
Have a happy whatever.

batmanZoSo
12-20-2006, 04:33 PM
We're fifth overall:

1) ATL: 1575- 1111
2) NYY: 1530- 1153
3) BOS: 1448- 1240
4) OAK: 1437- 1250
5) CHW: 1433- 1252

All but one have a WS title.

Ah, it's still good to say that.

PennStater98r
12-20-2006, 05:06 PM
With all due respect, we have no right to compare ourselves to a team that won over a dozen consecutive division championships. Zilch. Zero. Zippo. We have not come close to doing anything ff that nature.

The only in common we have with the Braves is that we've only won one World Series in the recent past.

Perhaps I did not state my case well enough. In fact I know I did not because I wanted to read some thought prior to sharing a few more of my thoughts.

What I am going to get at is that the team that KW built as of 2005 is a team that is in place and has the potential to run off many years of success - the foundation starts in the pitching - just like with Atlanta. They had such a good program for developing starting pitching that guys like Millwood and Neagle and Avery were traded so that they could continue to move guys from within their own farm system - not to mention save money by paying the guys like Smoltz, Maddux and Glavine.

The difference is that of the list of recent Atlanta pitchers - only two are going to go down as certain legends - and a third could as well (Maddux and Glavine will go to the Hall - Smoltz might).

The Sox are in the same postion that Atlanta was at the end of the Eighties. They had a lot of good - major league ready - pitching. Some guys started declining and they were moved for youth or to make room for youth.

I am simply saying that the Sox have the potential to end up taking this path.

No granted - in addition to the pitching, they had Chipper, Andruw, Shef - but I think it starts with pitching.

Thoughts?

WhiteSox5187
12-20-2006, 05:20 PM
The Braves built around a pitching staff of Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. And when they left (well, except for Smoltz) the division had weakened to the point where the good young pitchers they had were able to compete inspite of their youth and inexperience. If the Sox re-sign Buerhle and Garland I see no reason why we can't build around them (I think Contreras is too old to build around) and have a run of division titles, but we'll be battling it out with the Tigers for years to come. The Tigers have a great YOUNG pitching staff. It'll be the Tigers and someboyd for years to come. God willing it will the Sox and Tigers battling it out year after year with the loser getting the wild card. But don't count out Cleveland! But yea, I could very easily see the Sox keeping a core of pitchers (ie Buerhle and Garland) to be competitive for years to come.

thomas35forever
12-20-2006, 05:30 PM
We can't compare ourselves to the Braves until we win at least a decade of consecutive division titles.

PennStater98r
12-20-2006, 05:32 PM
We can't compare ourselves to the Braves until we win at least a decade of consecutive division titles.

Please see (and read) the longer - drawn out post above...

Jjav829
12-20-2006, 05:55 PM
Uhh, we didn't even make the playoffs the year after we won the World Series. Let's hold off on the Braves comparisons until we at least win back-to-back division championships.

PennStater98r
12-20-2006, 06:06 PM
Uhh, we didn't even make the playoffs the year after we won the World Series. Let's hold off on the Braves comparisons until we at least win back-to-back division championships.

Please note the statement from my previous post:

The Sox are in the same postion that Atlanta was at the end of the Eighties. They had a lot of good - major league ready - pitching. Some guys started declining and they were moved for youth or to make room for youth.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-20-2006, 07:52 PM
...

Look, if this past year (and many others in the recent past) should tell us is that - JUST GET INTO THE POST SEASON - because after that anything can happen! Just get into the playoffs and let the enjoyment begin....

EXACTLY. The baseball era everyone romances from the 1950s is dead and buried. So many also-ran teams make the Selig-ized baseball playoffs, it's nearly pointless to bother with 162 games just to pick 8.

Get hot in October and anything can happen. St. Louis might be baseball's "champion" but I GUARANTEE they would have finished fourth in the A.L. Central last summer.

SOXSINCE'70
12-20-2006, 08:46 PM
St. Louis might be baseball's "champion" but I GUARANTEE they would have finished fourth in the A.L. Central last summer.

I GUARANTEE that if the 90 win White Sox had actually
made it to the playoffs and WS,they would have swept
those "lucky" 83 win bastards in 4.

Just my opinion.But as "Coach" Ditka once said,
"If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts,we'd all
have a merry Christmas".

caulfield12
12-20-2006, 09:04 PM
I GUARANTEE that if the 90 win White Sox had actually
made it to the playoffs and WS,they would have swept
those "lucky" 83 win bastards in 4.

Just my opinion.But as "Coach" Ditka once said,
"If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts,we'd all
have a merry Christmas".


Not the way they played the final two months of the season.

You're talking MULTIPLE (handfuls) of Cy Young winners with those staffs.
Have we even had a pitcher during that stretch finish in the Top 5, besides Loaiza (and after McDowell)? Was Garland this year?

There isn't one Sox pitcher you would obviously rank ahead (or even with) Glavine, Smoltz, Maddux (and Avery in his prime) during that time frame of Braves' domination.

Heck, you'd be hard-pressed to take one of our pitchers right now over the likes of a Jason Schmidt or Kevin Millwood.

palehozenychicty
12-20-2006, 09:39 PM
The Braves built around a pitching staff of Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz. And when they left (well, except for Smoltz) the division had weakened to the point where the good young pitchers they had were able to compete inspite of their youth and inexperience. If the Sox re-sign Buerhle and Garland I see no reason why we can't build around them (I think Contreras is too old to build around) and have a run of division titles, but we'll be battling it out with the Tigers for years to come. The Tigers have a great YOUNG pitching staff. It'll be the Tigers and someboyd for years to come. God willing it will the Sox and Tigers battling it out year after year with the loser getting the wild card. But don't count out Cleveland! But yea, I could very easily see the Sox keeping a core of pitchers (ie Buerhle and Garland) to be competitive for years to come.


Since 2000, Buehrle and Garland have been the mainstays of the Sox rotation, and hopefully it will be that way for quite awhile longer.

Jjav829
12-20-2006, 10:06 PM
Please note the statement from my previous post:

I read your post. My statement still stands. You can't start to even make comparisons to the 90s Braves until you've won your division at least two years in a row, and really the real number should be around 8 years in a row. There are plenty of other teams in the same, or better, position that the Sox are in. What made the Braves run special is not that they assembled this core of good pitchers, but that they kept them together for a very long time and all three performed incredibly well for a long period of time. And BTW, just to clarify, we're not talking about simply good pitching. We're talking about one sure-thing HOF'er, one almost sure-thing HOF'er, and another who has put together a very good career starting and relieving and at least merits some discussion about his HOF credentials. These are all guys who during their time in Atlanta were at some point or another considered to be near the cream of the crop.

You asked for opinions, my opinion is that it's way too early to even think about discussions. You want to talk about teams that have assembled good, young pitching? Look to LA with Lackey, Santana, Weaver and a few more on the way. Look to Florida with Willis, Johnson, Olsen, Sanchez and several more on the way. Look to Detroit with Bonderman and Verlander and youngsters like Zumaya and Miller, who are likely to be starting in the not-too-distant future. Or the Twins with Johan, Liriano, Garza and more on the way. The point is, there are plenty of teams that have seemingly assembled good, young cores (younger than ours) of pitching. They won't all win 14 straight division titles. In fact, it's likely that none of them will. It's damn hard to do, as we saw this year when we couldn't even make the playoffs a 2nd straight year, despite a seemingly better team. There are just too many unpredictables.

If we manage to run off a few straight years of division titles, then we can have an earnest dicsussion about the topic. Until then, it's way too premature.

caulfield12
12-21-2006, 02:59 AM
I read your post. My statement still stands. You can't start to even make comparisons to the 90s Braves until you've won your division at least two years in a row, and really the real number should be around 8 years in a row. There are plenty of other teams in the same, or better, position that the Sox are in. What made the Braves run special is not that they assembled this core of good pitchers, but that they kept them together for a very long time and all three performed incredibly well for a long period of time. And BTW, just to clarify, we're not talking about simply good pitching. We're talking about one sure-thing HOF'er, one almost sure-thing HOF'er, and another who has put together a very good career starting and relieving and at least merits some discussion about his HOF credentials. These are all guys who during their time in Atlanta were at some point or another considered to be near the cream of the crop.

You asked for opinions, my opinion is that it's way too early to even think about discussions. You want to talk about teams that have assembled good, young pitching? Look to LA with Lackey, Santana, Weaver and a few more on the way. Look to Florida with Willis, Johnson, Olsen, Sanchez and several more on the way. Look to Detroit with Bonderman and Verlander and youngsters like Zumaya and Miller, who are likely to be starting in the not-too-distant future. Or the Twins with Johan, Liriano, Garza and more on the way. The point is, there are plenty of teams that have seemingly assembled good, young cores (younger than ours) of pitching. They won't all win 14 straight division titles. In fact, it's likely that none of them will. It's damn hard to do, as we saw this year when we couldn't even make the playoffs a 2nd straight year, despite a seemingly better team. There are just too many unpredictables.

If we manage to run off a few straight years of division titles, then we can have an earnest dicsussion about the topic. Until then, it's way too premature.


Yeah, you would have to argue the Twins (2001-present) and the Tigers are a better comparison.

The Braves went through a very rough period while they patiently waited for Glavine, Smoltz and Avery to mature. Same thing with the Tigers with Bonderman, Robertson and Maroth, although it will be a long time before you could BEGIN to compare their careers with the Atlanta triumvarate.

The Twins, because you can compare their farm systems and talent acquisition/procurement, but those Braves teams were consistently in the Top 5-7 MLB payrolls until the Time Warner purchase. Who knows, with the new stadium, the Twins probably will spend more money, but I wouldn't expect it would consistently be $100-125 million with their owner.

The A's, to a lesser extent, but the pitching comparisons are there to be made, especially losing some pitchers (like Hudson and Mulder) and replacing them effectively over time with Harden and Haren, to name a couple.

Hitmen77
12-21-2006, 08:22 AM
We're fifth overall:

1) ATL: 1575- 1111
2) NYY: 1530- 1153
3) BOS: 1448- 1240
4) OAK: 1437- 1250
5) CHW: 1433- 1252

:sahaf
"Lies! All Lies! Sox ownership is endlessly fielding bad teams because they're too cheap to win. 2005 was a one-and-done fluke. History shows that the infidel Sox are never competitive. Forget about the White Sox. All hail the Cubs - Chicago's premier baseball franchise!"

Hitmen77
12-21-2006, 08:32 AM
We're fifth overall:

1) ATL: 1575- 1111
2) NYY: 1530- 1153
3) BOS: 1448- 1240
4) OAK: 1437- 1250
5) CHW: 1433- 1252

What this means to me is that the Sox have been successful in consistently fielding a competitive ballclub since 1990. Despite what some media outlets (cough* Cubune * cough) want fans to think, the 2005 team wasn't just a one-and-done fluke - this was a culmination of a long, consistent effort to bring that trophy to Chicago. I'm not saying I have agreed with every move the Sox have made and no one knows how successful they'll be in the future, but I have no reason to think the Sox are just going to fire sale and totally scrap their winning team.

....even the Sox "dark years" (late 90s) during this 17 year span wasn't a total waste. During that time, they added people like Crede, Konerko, Buehrle, and Garland to the organization. Keys to our 2005 world championship.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-21-2006, 06:59 PM
:sahaf
"Lies! All Lies! Sox ownership is endlessly fielding bad teams because they're too cheap to win. 2005 was a one-and-done fluke. History shows that the infidel Sox are never competitive. Forget about the White Sox. All hail the Cubs - Chicago's premier baseball franchise!"

To read some of the stuff Rogers, Sullivan, and Van Dyck have written, you wonder why the Cubune never hired this guy, too. He needs a new job, doesn't he?

:sahaf
"I could have written this headline!"

:cubune

SBSoxFan
12-21-2006, 10:18 PM
Heck, you'd be hard-pressed to take one of our pitchers right now over the likes of a Jason Schmidt or Kevin Millwood.

:o:

You're right. I'd take any of them, but I'm biased.

23Ventura
12-21-2006, 11:12 PM
St. Louis might be baseball's "champion" but I GUARANTEE they would have finished fourth in the A.L. Central last summer.
Maybe 5th.