PDA

View Full Version : 2007 Detriot= 2006 White Sox?


ChiSoxFan7
03-25-2007, 09:25 AM
If you think about the 05 White Sox you see that we had amazing pitching, solid defense, good leadoff, and clutch hits/hitters. We had charsimatic leaders, as well as the laid back kind of guys. We also had a great manager When I look at the 06 Tigers I see the exact same things. So what I am wondering, is what if the Tigers have the fall the white sox did last year. I heard reasons on eastcoast sports propaganda networks, but more imporantly on here that the team becomes distracted. Many of the players on the Tigers were unkowns, but have been thrusted into the lime light.

So as all this talk of the Tigers are the team to beat, I am just wondering how do we know that they aren't the us of last year?

Arkham
03-25-2007, 10:02 AM
Well, we don't, but do you know why we were the us of last year? It was pitching. Starters ERA 2005/2006

Buerhle: 3.12/4.99
Garland: 3.50/4.51
Contreras: 3.61/4.27
Garcia: 3.87/4.53
5th starter in 05/Vazquez: 4.90/4.84

Factor in that the bullpen wasn't as good, and you realize we were giving up an extra run a game. We were scoring more, largely thanks to JD and Thome, but it wasn't enough to make up for our whole rotation slipping from greatness to mediocrity. Will Detroit's do the same? They could. Rogers is going to be 42 this season. Bonderman, Verlander and Miner are all under 25, though, so while they may be inconsistent, I don't know if we can count on all of them dropping off.

ondafarm
03-25-2007, 10:11 AM
Young pitchers who increase their season total by more than 30 innings tend to have difficulty the following year. And Detroit didn't add the offensive firepower the White Sox did (effectively swapping Crazy Carl for Thome and Rowand for Anderson.)

Jurr
03-25-2007, 11:20 AM
There's a big difference. The '06 Sox came off of a WS title. They were media darlings throughout the offseason, because they broke an 88 year drought. They were soaking in the accolades, from ESPN to the Golf Channel to TNA Wrestling. Also, the Sox had been pretty good for a number of years consecutively, but never had enough to get over the hump.

The Tigers came out of nowhere. They were perennially a garbage team, but played lights out all season long. However, they didn't win it all, so they're by no means "fat and happy". You can make an '00 Sox comparison, saying that all of the Tigers had career years (especially Thames, Monroe, and Inge), but that's also saying a lot.

The Tigers have strong starting pitching, a tough bullpen, and they have great balance in their lineup. The thing that separates them from the '06 Sox is motivation. They didn't get rings last year. They sniffed the prize only to fizzle out. They'll be a handful this season - mark my words.

Steelrod
03-25-2007, 11:27 AM
Heres hoping!

IndianWhiteSox
03-25-2007, 11:28 AM
There's a big difference. The '06 Sox came off of a WS title. They were media darlings throughout the offseason, because they broke an 88 year drought. They were soaking in the accolades, from ESPN to the Golf Channel to TNA Wrestling. Also, the Sox had been pretty good for a number of years consecutively, but never had enough to get over the hump.

The Tigers came out of nowhere. They were perennially a garbage team, but played lights out all season long. However, they didn't win it all, so they're by no means "fat and happy". You can make an '00 Sox comparison, saying that all of the Tigers had career years (especially Thames, Monroe, and Inge), but that's also saying a lot.

The Tigers have strong starting pitching, a tough bullpen, and they have great balance in their lineup. The thing that separates them from the '06 Sox is motivation. They didn't get rings last year. They sniffed the prize only to fizzle out. They'll be a handful this season - mark my words.

That might be stretching it, but they sure as hell aren't the '05 White Sox who actually won unlike these tiggers. But I think they'll be in the hunt, but they won't be that great this year.

soxinem1
03-25-2007, 11:35 AM
I agree with the pitching theory. They need their four and five guys to come through in the rotation, and the bullpen to slam the doors again after the seventh inning.

Also remember that Granderson sort of fell in Leyland's doghouse later in the year, he'll have something to prove.

What I am suprised that no one is mentioning is defense. They are not a good defensive team overall and are very lacking in even decent foot-speed. Once Placido Polonco got hurt it seemed as if they lost a beat even more on the defensive end, so keeping the up-the-middle defense strong will be key to them, as they have a few ground-ball types in the rotation.

I think they are still a lock for 90 wins at minimum, so the White Sox need to keep on their toes.

chaerulez
03-25-2007, 11:37 AM
Well, we don't, but do you know why we were the us of last year? It was pitching. Starters ERA 2005/2006

Buerhle: 3.12/4.99
Garland: 3.50/4.51
Contreras: 3.61/4.27
Garcia: 3.87/4.53
5th starter in 05/Vazquez: 4.90/4.84

Factor in that the bullpen wasn't as good, and you realize we were giving up an extra run a game. We were scoring more, largely thanks to JD and Thome, but it wasn't enough to make up for our whole rotation slipping from greatness to mediocrity. Will Detroit's do the same? They could. Rogers is going to be 42 this season. Bonderman, Verlander and Miner are all under 25, though, so while they may be inconsistent, I don't know if we can count on all of them dropping off.

I'd say the dropoff in bullpen was just as important.

Cotts: 1.94/5.17
Politte: 2.00/8.70
Hermanson: 2.04/4.05 (although he only pitched in 6 games in 2006)
Jenks: 2.75/4.00

viagracat
03-25-2007, 12:31 PM
Detroit didn't get it done last year, unlike the Sox in '05. And you underestimate Leyland at your own peril. They'll be around all year.

The scary thing is, there are at least three teams in the AL Central capable of winning 90 games or more. One of them won't make the playoffs. :o:

oeo
03-25-2007, 12:46 PM
Detroit didn't get it done last year, unlike the Sox in '05. And you underestimate Leyland at your own peril. They'll be around all year.

The scary thing is, there are at least three teams in the AL Central capable of winning 90 games or more. One of them won't make the playoffs. :o:

It doesn't matter that they didn't get it done. They still played an extra month, their pitchers still threw those innings. It's not like basketball where you can come back like the Mavs this year and say, "We didn't finish it last year, we're finishing it this year." They're going to have problems. Their lack of ability to manufacture runs, their strikeouts, STILL having no left-handed power, Rogers is 42 and without his pinetar, I never know what to expect from Bonderman...inconsistent is his middle name, Verlander is the only guy I like on their staff but will his IP catch up to him?, Robertson blows, Maroth blows,...should I continue?

No one will ever believe it until they see the Tigers struggle, but they had a magical first half last year...that was it. Look at some of those wins and tell me that wasn't magic. If they get that magic again this year, sure, they'll be around, but if the Royals get that magic, they will surprise some people too.

Beer Can Chicken
03-25-2007, 12:47 PM
If you think about the 05 White Sox you see that we had amazing pitching, solid defense, good leadoff, and clutch hits/hitters. We had charsimatic leaders, as well as the laid back kind of guys. We also had a great manager When I look at the 06 Tigers I see the exact same things. So what I am wondering, is what if the Tigers have the fall the white sox did last year. I heard reasons on eastcoast sports propaganda networks, but more imporantly on here that the team becomes distracted. Many of the players on the Tigers were unkowns, but have been thrusted into the lime light.

So as all this talk of the Tigers are the team to beat, I am just wondering how do we know that they aren't the us of last year?

I think Cleveland is the team to beat this year.

oeo
03-25-2007, 12:52 PM
I think Cleveland is the team to beat this year.

The Twins are the technical 'team to beat' because they won the division last year, but in reality, I don't think there is a real 'team to beat'. I agree that the Indians will be the team fighting with the Sox. I don't think the AL Central is going to be as tough as everyone is saying it will. I'll keep saying it, 94 wins will win the division...and not because everyone will be beating up on each other, but because it's not as strong as everyone believes it to be.

That's why I think that we have the team to win the division, but I'll hold off any playoff predictions until I see the season play out somewhat.

SoxxoS
03-25-2007, 12:58 PM
I think Cleveland is the team to beat this year.

Its very hard to win without a bullpen. Very hard.

And Detroit did add firepower in Sheffield...but they are going to be a lot more "unlucky" this year...as they were very healthy last season throughout their starting lineup and rotation--you can bet Kenny Rogers, Verlander etc one of them is going to spend some time on the shelf.

Beer Can Chicken
03-25-2007, 01:04 PM
Its very hard to win without a bullpen. Very hard.

Joe Borowski! The guy is a first ballot Hall of Famer.

SOXSINCE'70
03-25-2007, 01:13 PM
Joe Borowski! The guy is a first ballot Hall of Famer.

:tealpolice: :tealtutor:

Just a friendly reminder.

goon
03-25-2007, 01:42 PM
I think Cleveland is the team to beat this year.


I'd like to believe that, but it seems like in the past two years the Indians have been hyped really hard and failed to make it to the playoffs both times. Now the media seems to be jumping on that bandwagon again... I'll believe it when I see it, especially with that bullpen.

Tragg
03-25-2007, 01:44 PM
Cleveland finished something like 18 games back last year. They may win it, but if they do, it will be a major turnaround.

Arkham
03-25-2007, 01:56 PM
I'll keep saying it, 94 wins will win the division...and not because everyone will be beating up on each other, but because it's not as strong as everyone believes it to be.

I agree with this. The Central isn't the doormat of the AL like it used to be, but we aren't some uber-strong division either. The Central was 86-86 against the East last year, and 84-88 against the West.

TDog
03-25-2007, 05:55 PM
...
The Tigers have strong starting pitching, a tough bullpen, and they have great balance in their lineup. The thing that separates them from the '06 Sox is motivation. They didn't get rings last year. They sniffed the prize only to fizzle out. They'll be a handful this season - mark my words.

Pithing is the most fragile of baseball commodities, and bullpens are especially fragile because most relievers have inconsistent careers. Baseball predictions aren't any better than guesses at this point. Otherwise, experts would have predicted last March that the number of pitchers with at least as many victories as Kerry Wood and Mark Prior COMBINED would run into three digits.

After winning the AL West by 20 games and falling short in the ALCS in 1983, the White Sox added Tom Seaver. Some speculated that he might not be able to crack the starting rotation as everyone forecast the still-hungry Sox to repeat. Instead, 1984 became the year the Cubs became some sort of America's team. Winning isn't easy. Repeating success -- even the success of choking away a big division lead, being saved by the wild card and winning a couple of short series in October -- is harder still.

soxinem1
03-25-2007, 09:37 PM
After winning the AL West by 20 games and falling short in the ALCS in 1983, the White Sox added Tom Seaver. Some speculated that he might not be able to crack the starting rotation as everyone forecast the still-hungry Sox to repeat.

This story about Tom Seaver is not true. After Seaver was selected in the compensation draft, Reinsdorf remarked that Seaver would get more run support with the White Sox that he didn't get with the NYM and maybe win 20 games, and that he could return to the World Series with us.

There was some initial rumbling about him not wanting to be in the AL and being traded to upgrade SS or 3B, but who was going to beat him out?

There were no other credible starting candidates on the roster. Plus, Britt Burns volunteered to start the year in the bullpen after Jerry Koosman, 1983's fifth starter, was traded for Ron Reed. Other than a few minor league prospects like Bob Fallon and journeymen guys like Randy Martz and Steve Mura, there was no one else that Seaver even had to worry about.

Qdiddy
03-26-2007, 12:02 AM
I just wanted to put my 2 cents in here, but didn't the Twins win the division last year?

I have been listen to the Score and ESPN talk about how great the Tigers are and how they have this unhittiable pitching staff and we have nothing. I'll agree that the Tigers do have some great young pitchers, but I'm still not ready to say they're that much better than what we have.

We have been getting bashed thoughtout the Chicago media for all the moves we didn't make, but they final to realize one thing. We owned the "great" Tigers last year and won the season series last year 12-5.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Sox had the best record against teams over .500 last year. They just couldn't figure out a way to beat Tampa, Cleveland, and KC. The Tigers feasted on those teams and that's the only reason why the Sox didn't get into the playoffs and they did.

All I wanted KW to do this offseason was to improve the bullpen, and he did. I can count atleast 5-7 games that Cotts blew buy himself.

Anyways, I just wanted to vent a little. Anyone else think the bashing is a little premature?

ChiSoxFan7
03-26-2007, 08:49 AM
i completely agree q, i think you need atleast 20 games in the regular season to real see if you need to start the bashing. but even at that you shouldn't be that quick to jump the gun. but then again with so many idiots in the media you have to expect it....

Arkham
03-26-2007, 09:04 AM
Premature in what sense? Yeah, everyone's guessing at this stage of the game. So? It's either this or just talk about nothing but basketball until May.

TDog
03-26-2007, 10:12 AM
This story about Tom Seaver is not true. After Seaver was selected in the compensation draft, Reinsdorf remarked that Seaver would get more run support with the White Sox that he didn't get with the NYM and maybe win 20 games, and that he could return to the World Series with us.

There was some initial rumbling about him not wanting to be in the AL and being traded to upgrade SS or 3B, but who was going to beat him out?

There were no other credible starting candidates on the roster. Plus, Britt Burns volunteered to start the year in the bullpen after Jerry Koosman, 1983's fifth starter, was traded for Ron Reed. Other than a few minor league prospects like Bob Fallon and journeymen guys like Randy Martz and Steve Mura, there was no one else that Seaver even had to worry about.

Go back and read the stories written during the offseason after the White Sox "stole" Tom Seaver from the Mets. He was considered a pitcher the White Sox didn't need. After the season one writer wrote "surprisingly -- maybe not so surprisingly -- Tom Seaver was their only decent pitcher."

My point was that the 1984 White Sox added near-unamious Hall of Famer Tom Seaver to one of the best teams of 1983 but had a crappy season anyway.

ChiSoxFan7
03-28-2007, 12:39 AM
Premature in what sense? Yeah, everyone's guessing at this stage of the game. So? It's either this or just talk about nothing but basketball until May.

Didn't think about that, but sometimes it's hard to put up with them talking about baseball and seemingly have no idea what is coming out of ther mouth.

WizardsofOzzie
03-28-2007, 07:19 AM
Factor in that the bullpen wasn't as good, and you realize we were giving up an extra run a game. We were scoring more, largely thanks to JD and Thome, but it wasn't enough to make up for our whole rotation slipping from greatness to mediocrity. Will Detroit's do the same? They could. Rogers is going to be 42 this season. Bonderman, Verlander and Miner are all under 25, though, so while they may be inconsistent, I don't know if we can count on all of them dropping off.
I believe Miner has already been sent down to AAA

Jerome
03-28-2007, 04:06 PM
Well, we don't, but do you know why we were the us of last year? It was pitching. Starters ERA 2005/2006

Buerhle: 3.12/4.99
Garland: 3.50/4.51
Contreras: 3.61/4.27
Garcia: 3.87/4.53
5th starter in 05/Vazquez: 4.90/4.84

Factor in that the bullpen wasn't as good, and you realize we were giving up an extra run a game. We were scoring more, largely thanks to JD and Thome, but it wasn't enough to make up for our whole rotation slipping from greatness to mediocrity. Will Detroit's do the same? They could. Rogers is going to be 42 this season. Bonderman, Verlander and Miner are all under 25, though, so while they may be inconsistent, I don't know if we can count on all of them dropping off.

No, it was that we hit too many homeruns and that the chemistry wasn't the same from 05 without Rowand

Jerome
03-28-2007, 04:08 PM
I just wanted to put my 2 cents in here, but didn't the Twins win the division last year?

I have been listen to the Score and ESPN talk about how great the Tigers are and how they have this unhittiable pitching staff and we have nothing. I'll agree that the Tigers do have some great young pitchers, but I'm still not ready to say they're that much better than what we have.

We have been getting bashed thoughtout the Chicago media for all the moves we didn't make, but they final to realize one thing. We owned the "great" Tigers last year and won the season series last year 12-5.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Sox had the best record against teams over .500 last year. They just couldn't figure out a way to beat Tampa, Cleveland, and KC. The Tigers feasted on those teams and that's the only reason why the Sox didn't get into the playoffs and they did.

All I wanted KW to do this offseason was to improve the bullpen, and he did. I can count atleast 5-7 games that Cotts blew buy himself.

Anyways, I just wanted to vent a little. Anyone else think the bashing is a little premature?


I thought Kenny's 05 offseason was outstanding. Absolutely outstanding. It's not his fault that pitchers who were good in 05 sucked one year later.

FloridaTigers
04-07-2007, 07:40 PM
As a Tigers fan, I see differences in this team. Yes, we added a slugger in Sheffield, similar acquisition like Thome was, but the Tigers have a much brighter future in starting pitching. Even if we don't do good this season, we'll contend possibly in 2008 and further, if Verlander, Bonderman, and Miller live up to expectation. If they do, we'll have a very nasty young rotation.

The Twins should be the target for all of the AL Central. There is no team I hate more than the darned Twins. I'm sure AL Central fans, Royals/Tigers/Sox/Indians alike, would like nothing more than the Twins to fail. They've won the division 4 out of 5 years and have done nothing, while the other AL Central teams who have been given a post-season shot since the Twins started their division run, have actually gotten out of the ALCS.