PDA

View Full Version : How bad is this team???


WhiteSox5187
06-24-2007, 04:13 AM
I think we are all in agreement that this team is bad, but how bad? Are we talking about 1970 bad (meaning 100+ losses)? 90 losses bad? .500? A little above .500? Playoffs?

Viva Medias B's
06-24-2007, 09:22 AM
I think we are all in agreement that this team is bad, but how bad? Are we talking about 1970 bad (meaning 100+ losses)? 90 losses bad? .500? A little above .500? Playoffs?

[Jim Mora]PLAYOFFS?!? You're talking about...PLAYOFFS?!?[/Jim Mora]

aryzner
06-24-2007, 11:23 AM
These are my current feelings: at this point, I can tell you that I would rather the Sox just forfeit the rest of the season and stop playing altogether, because I cannot stand watching or hearing this anymore. Sure, I could try to stop paying attention, but I can't help reading the Sports page to get updates on the Bears/Bulls/etc. Also I have friends who are Cub fans who want to enjoy every moment of our Sox losing, and act like they just won 5 World Series in a row just because the Cubs have a better record.

They make me so angry and sad at the same time. So angry. So sad. How bad they are is driving me nuts. I think some of us WSIers could play better baseball at the major league level at the moment.

I don't think I need teal for the parts of this rant that sound ridiculous. Hell, maybe some of them really don't need teal and can be taken as serious. That's how bad the state of the Sox is! :(

downstairs
06-24-2007, 12:19 PM
You know, Its almost starting to get Cubs-bad. I'm going to begin secretly loving the losses because of the comedy factor.

The only problem is their losses aren't comedic. They're just bad. Not good-bad or funny-bad. Just stupid bad.

kobo
06-24-2007, 01:18 PM
And to think, a lot of us flipped out when BP projected the Sox to win 72 games this year. As of now, I'll be happy if they win 72 games.

One of the reasons this season has been so hard to swallow is because of what happend in 05. And because we were all led to believe that the organization was going to do what it took to keep the team competitive for the next few years. It is disheartening that the team is this bad considering they won it all 21 months ago.

MrRoboto83
06-24-2007, 01:21 PM
As of right now 100 losses bad, but I could see it getting improved to 90 losses bad by the end of the season.

MarySwiss
06-24-2007, 01:22 PM
I went with a little over .500. I keep on thinking--why, I have no idea!--that they cannot possibly continue to suck this mightily.

WhiteSox5187
06-24-2007, 01:36 PM
I went with a little over .500. I keep on thinking--why, I have no idea!--that they cannot possibly continue to suck this mightily.
That's what I'm thinking...I think at some point this team's offense will get hot and they'll go on a bit of winning streak to put them near respectability.

russ99
06-24-2007, 02:10 PM
I went with a little over .500. I keep on thinking--why, I have no idea!--that they cannot possibly continue to suck this mightily.

I also voted .500, but only because this team is certainly good enough to play at .500 but instead they have been playing so far below what we should expect.

fusillirob1983
06-24-2007, 02:24 PM
I voted .500, but after watching the ball fall in front of Terrero on that last play, I'd like to change my vote.

thomas35forever
06-24-2007, 02:53 PM
I vote BP was right on this year.

Brian26
06-24-2007, 03:00 PM
I also voted .500, but only because this team is certainly good enough to play at .500 but instead they have been playing so far below what we should expect.

I voted .500 as well, but if the injuries continue to mount up, that may be a pipedream.

Brian26
06-24-2007, 03:01 PM
I vote BP was right on this year.

How did they know that Hall, Pods, Erstad, Ozuna, Thome, Crede and Dye would get hurt though?

TDog
06-24-2007, 03:10 PM
Right now the White Sox are playing 100-loss badly, but the team isn't 100-loss bad. The bullpen isn't as bad as it's been pitching. Jenks isn't bad, and he is to blame for two losses int the last two games he appeared. Thornton has had bad games punctuated by good games (or vice versa) since the opening series against the Indians. Except for Thornton, the entire bullpen looked great in April. The starting pitching has been doing as much lead blowing as the bullpen has in the last few weeks. It isn't so much that this team is aging, the way the Giants are aging. Every possible negative aspect to the Sox team this year has been amplified. The lack of speed except for Podsednik, Ozuna and Erstad; Crede's back, the inexperience of the bullpen (strangely, Boone Logan is turning out to be one of the most reliable relievers). Baseball Prosectus didn't project Gonzalez starting in right and Fields starting at third. Or maybe they did.

This team isn't that bad. It's not as bad as the Detroit Tigers were in 2003.when the Tigers were so bad it looked like they would be bad forever. They aren't as bad as the Tigers of 2005 that lost 91 games They aren't as bad as the Twins in 2000, which lost 93 games.

My guess is that the Sox will play better baseball in July and August. Fans will complain that it means nothing because the pressure is off. That won't change the adjustments that need to be made to bring more speed to the team, to add more punch to the lineup and to shore up the bullpen.

What the Sox really need is better defensive catcher who can do a better job at calling games. Some of the bullpen problems have been a matter of control. Others have obviously been a matter of pitch selection. A pitching coach works on the arm slot. A catcher works with the pitcher on the mound. Pierzynski isn't mentally suited to be a backup catcher, so doing something about the defensive catcher position might require a hard choice.

Of course the team is playing badly. But that doesn't mean it is that far away from being good again.

Frater Perdurabo
06-24-2007, 05:15 PM
What the Sox really need is better defensive catcher who can do a better job at calling games. Some of the bullpen problems have been a matter of control. Others have obviously been a matter of pitch selection. A pitching coach works on the arm slot. A catcher works with the pitcher on the mound. Pierzynski isn't mentally suited to be a backup catcher, so doing something about the defensive catcher position might require a hard choice.

I don't think anyone is untouchable, and I agree that AJ is not a great defensive catcher, but if he's not good at calling games, how does one explain 2005?

JB98
06-24-2007, 05:19 PM
90 losses. We're too crippled up and our bullpen is too bad to go on an extended run.

TDog
06-24-2007, 05:50 PM
I don't think anyone is untouchable, and I agree that AJ is not a great defensive catcher, but if he's not good at calling games, how does one explain 2005?

It could be that the pitching was better in 2005, so there was less margin for error. I don't know. But the catcher is more influential to a pitcher in a game than a pitching coach. Pierzynski doesn't throw especially well, though neither does Martinez with Cleveland. The more inexperienced your pitchers, the more they need an experienced catcher to help them. That may have been the biggest miscalculation with the bullpen coming into this season.

Not wanting to get rid of Pierzynski because of 2005 is on par with not wanting to get rid of Rowand, who the White Sox will no doubt try to pick up this winter. I wouldn't equate it, though, with not wanting to get rid of Uribe because of 2005.

The reason I don't believe the Sox will lose 100 games is that the unbalanced schedule has them playing the Central much more in from here on out, which isn't a very strong division beyond the top two teams, which have bullpen issues. The NL this year looks to be at least as good the AL. The AL West is better than the AL Central. I think the East will be stronger than the central in the second half.

PatK
06-24-2007, 06:07 PM
I guess this is what being a Cubs fan feels like year in and year out.

How the hell do they do it, other than alcohol?

UserNameBlank
06-24-2007, 07:24 PM
How did they know that Hall, Pods, Erstad, Ozuna, Thome, Crede and Dye would get hurt though?
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel every now and then.

Vernam
06-24-2007, 07:47 PM
It pains me to say so, but I think we could see 100 losses. To some people, this collapse makes the 2005 championship look like a fluke, and you can sense that KW and OG are just as confused about it as the rest of us are.

The trades about to occur will make it likely we'll lose more in the second half than in the first half. Even if Buehrle doesn't go, our starting pitching isn't likely to remain at its current high level. And is there anyone (besides Hawk) who still buys the concept that our hitters can't remain this awful?

Vernam

eriqjaffe
06-24-2007, 07:55 PM
100+.

The only thing keeping them close to alive right now is the starting pitching. I am 97% certain that Mark Buehrle will be playing for somebody else within the next month, which means that we'll probably be seeing Gavin Floyd or Nick Masset taking over the #5 spot.

Unless the offense finally comes out of its' coma (it's beyond them just sleeping, by now), things are just going to get worse and worse this year.

At the least, I can console myself by having predicted at work that the Sox would be lucky to win 1 game this weekend, so my Cub-fan co-workers (who generally are very good about such things) really won't have much to rub in my face, since I'll pretty much just be agreeing with their assessment of the Sox' suckitude.

PKalltheway
06-24-2007, 08:25 PM
This team isn't that bad. It's not as bad as the Detroit Tigers were in 2003.when the Tigers were so bad it looked like they would be bad forever. They aren't as bad as the Tigers of 2005 that lost 91 games They aren't as bad as the Twins in 2000, which lost 93 games.

My guess is that the Sox will play better baseball in July and August.
I agree. The Sox are bad this year, but for some reason, I think they'll turn it on in July and August as well. I see them finishing somewhere between 78 and 81 wins.

This is the worst I've seen the Sox play in my lifetime, but it isn't the worst I've seen any team play. I understand that I have been spoiled as a Sox fan over the last decade, but I don't think this is the worst Sox team ever. 1970 from what I've read, seemed like a pretty ugly year with 106 losses, and threats of moving to Milwaukee.

If we're this upset about the Sox being this bad this year, imagine how people in Pittsburgh must feel with 14 straight losing seasons!:o:

Grzegorz
06-24-2007, 08:34 PM
I believe Pittsburgh, at one time, was a "Pirates" town.

This is the problem with losing, it builds indifference. I want the Chicago White Sox to take this town back.

chisoxfanatic
06-24-2007, 11:09 PM
That's what I'm thinking...I think at some point this team's offense will get hot and they'll go on a bit of winning streak to put them near respectability.

Exactly when do you see the team having a FULL lineup? That short time is the only time anything was clicking this season. We're running a lineup that is nearly half should-be minor leaguers every single night. It's depressing!

The reason I don't believe the Sox will lose 100 games is that the unbalanced schedule has them playing the Central much more in from here on out, which isn't a very strong division beyond the top two teams, which have bullpen issues. The AL West is better than the AL Central. I think the East will be stronger than the central in the second half.

C'mon. You know the Twins will keep on beating the crap out of us, and the top two teams in the division aren't going anywhere. Our only saving grace is the possibility of finishing higher than Kansas City (who's hopes are close to caving-in as we speak).

In order for the Sox to lose under 100 games, they have to win 63. That's 34 more wins. With the easiest part of the schedule done, I don't see that happening! The Sox are going to lose about 105 games.

And don't call me a dark cloud guys and gals. I'm just speaking from the mind.

santo=dorf
06-24-2007, 11:22 PM
The Sox are so bad they actually might make BP look correct with their 72-90, 4th place prediction. Of course BP liked our bullpen moves and thought we would be competitive because of it.

chisoxfanatic
06-24-2007, 11:26 PM
The Sox are so bad they actually might make BP look correct with their 72-90, 4th place prediction. Of course BP liked our bullpen moves and thought we would be competitive because of it.
They're actually so bad that they might make BP look GENEROUS with their 72-90 4th place prediction!

kevingrt
06-25-2007, 12:14 AM
Bad.

Gavin
06-25-2007, 01:57 AM
So long as Bukvich and Logan are still playing on the White Sox, this team isn't going anywhere near .500.

IowaSox1971
06-25-2007, 03:12 AM
I agree. The Sox are bad this year, but for some reason, I think they'll turn it on in July and August as well. I see them finishing somewhere between 78 and 81 wins.

This is the worst I've seen the Sox play in my lifetime, but it isn't the worst I've seen any team play. I understand that I have been spoiled as a Sox fan over the last decade, but I don't think this is the worst Sox team ever. 1970 from what I've read, seemed like a pretty ugly year with 106 losses, and threats of moving to Milwaukee.

If we're this upset about the Sox being this bad this year, imagine how people in Pittsburgh must feel with 14 straight losing seasons!:o:


I wouldn't be surprised if this team did even better than a .500 record this season. In 2003, we were 26-34 at one point, and at another point we were 45-50. We then got hot and we still were in first place for part of September and finished with 86 wins. It's too soon to pull the plug on the season.

In 2002, we were 59-69 at one point before finishing 81-81.

And in 2001, we were 14-29 at one point before finishing 83-79.

There's still a lot of baseball to be played. Maybe things will start bouncing our way. It doesn't look good now, but you never know.

Sxy Mofo
06-25-2007, 04:15 AM
[Jim Mora]PLAYOFFS?!? You're talking about...PLAYOFFS?!?[/Jim Mora]


If Ozzie pulls off a quote as memorable as this, it'll be beautiful. If he can make one of those memorable quotes that you see on top 10 lists for years, then this season won't be a complete waste.

I have this scenario in my mind:
Reporter: Ozzie, how do you feel about your team's chances for the playoffs?
Ozzie (in classic pissed off ozzie where you can barely make out what he's saying): "Playoffs? You ask me about playoffs? What is wrong with you? We can't hit enough to get a lead, and when we do, we can't keep it. I'd like to win another game before you ask me about playoffs... Playoffs... you ask me about playoffs." And then at this point, Ozzie slams the mic down, and walks off cursing in spanish.

Please ozzie. Do this. Do this for me.

mccoydp
06-25-2007, 08:35 AM
And don't call me a dark cloud guys and gals. I'm just speaking from the mind.

I don't think that will happen. We're past the point of dark-cloudiness.; this team is just too bad.

itsnotrequired
06-25-2007, 08:49 AM
How bad is this team? As of this morning, the Sox rank last in all the majors in:

- runs
- hits
- doubles
- triples
- runs batted in
- total bases
- on-base percentage
- slugging percentage
- on-base plus slugging percentage
- average
- extra-base hits

They are tied with the Reds for the fewest wins. Every team in the NL save the Reds have a higher winning percentage.

:(:

Railsplitter
06-25-2007, 09:05 AM
I still say this is a .500 team

itsnotrequired
06-25-2007, 09:10 AM
I still say this is a .500 team

Only because the starting staff is still keeping the ship afloat. If not for the bullpen performance in April, this team would be lucky to have 25 wins right now.

rwcescato
06-25-2007, 09:18 AM
These are my current feelings: at this point, I can tell you that I would rather the Sox just forfeit the rest of the season and stop playing altogether, because I cannot stand watching or hearing this anymore. Sure, I could try to stop paying attention, but I can't help reading the Sports page to get updates on the Bears/Bulls/etc. Also I have friends who are Cub fans who want to enjoy every moment of our Sox losing, and act like they just won 5 World Series in a row just because the Cubs have a better record.

They make me so angry and sad at the same time. So angry. So sad. How bad they are is driving me nuts. I think some of us WSIers could play better baseball at the major league level at the moment.

I don't think I need teal for the parts of this rant that sound ridiculous. Hell, maybe some of them really don't need teal and can be taken as serious. That's how bad the state of the Sox is! :(

I think the windy city t-bolts should put on the Sox uniforms. They would win a lot more games.

Fenway
06-25-2007, 11:56 AM
This truly an astounding stat

The White Sox's .234 team batting average is 51 points lower than their average after 70 games last season.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/25/Rays/Rays_up_next.shtml

vegyrex
06-25-2007, 12:32 PM
90 losses seems optimistic.

100 losses seems like a scary possibility. :(:

itsnotrequired
06-25-2007, 01:19 PM
This truly an astounding stat

The White Sox's .234 team batting average is 51 points lower than their average after 70 games last season.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/06/25/Rays/Rays_up_next.shtml

You want another astounding stat? You have to go back to 1972 to find an AL team that batted below .234. The Ranger's hit .217 that year on way to a 54-100 record.

This offense is "once every quarter century" bad.

PKalltheway
06-25-2007, 01:46 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-06/30742907.jpg
I know this year sucks, but he needs to get that ****ing bag off of his head. He's acting like a Pirates fan or something (and yet, I've never seen them do that either).

The Racehorse
06-25-2007, 01:54 PM
I know this year sucks, but he needs to get that ****ing bag off of his head. He's acting like a Pirates fan or something (and yet, I've never seen them do that either).

PKalltheway,
I agree 100%... I'd like to tell that knucklehead that we're not the damn 'Aints. :mad:

SpartanSoxFan
06-25-2007, 03:56 PM
This team is easily capable of losing 90 games. They haven't won a series in an eternity and are losing to juggernauts like the Pirates and the Astros.

thechico
06-25-2007, 04:03 PM
I think we are all in agreement that this team is bad, but how bad? Are we talking about 1970 bad (meaning 100+ losses)? 90 losses bad? .500? A little above .500? Playoffs?

I can see it as a daily stat soon: '07 Sox vs. '70 Sox.

Where are we compared to '70 anyways?

TDog
06-25-2007, 04:19 PM
You want another astounding stat? You have to go back to 1972 to find an AL team that batted below .234. The Ranger's hit .217 that year on way to a 54-100 record.

This offense is "once every quarter century" bad.

That was the first strike year, which knocked a little more than a week off the beginning aof the schedule. I had tickets for opening day that year. It also was the last year before AL adopted the DH as a "three-year experiment." This was the first year of the Rangers' existence, having just moved from Washington. The defacto home opener for the Sox was a 14-0 win over the Rangers, who would finish last. I also saw the Sox beat the Rangers in Texas that season. The White Sox finished with the third-best record in baseball, thanks to great seasons from Dick Allen, Carlos May (both of whom hit .308), Wilbur Wood and a great bullpen led by 20- and 21-year-old stud pitchers.

The White Sox that year had a team batting average of .238.

Lip Man 1
06-25-2007, 04:39 PM
Chico:

1970 was the worst season in franchise history with 106 losses and for the season the Sox drew (not J.D.!) a TOTAL of 495,355 fans.

That's for all home games.

Lip

WhiteSox5187
06-25-2007, 04:42 PM
Chico:

1970 was the worst season in franchise history with 106 losses and for the season the Sox drew (not J.D.!) a TOTAL of 495,355 fans.

That's for all home games.

Lip
We also played four "home" games in Milwaulkee that year...it must have been dark times to have been a Sox fan those years...at the same time, I wonder what it was like to go to a game that year.

Lip Man 1
06-25-2007, 04:49 PM
5187:

A root canal was more pleasant!

Lip

TDog
06-25-2007, 05:23 PM
We also played four "home" games in Milwaulkee that year...it must have been dark times to have been a Sox fan those years...at the same time, I wonder what it was like to go to a game that year.


The Sox played 84 games in Old Comiskey in 1970, winning 31 and losing 53. they played 78 games on the road, winning 25 and losing 53. They played eight games in Milwaukee, winning three and losing five to the Brewers. The Seattle Pilots moved to Milwaukee before the 1970 season, inaugurating the new Milwaukee franchise on April 7 with a 12-0 loss to the Angels some 90 miles from where the White Sox were losing 12-0 to the Twins. Because of inclement weather and scheduling difficulties, one game the Sox were scheduled to play in Milwaukee against the Brewers was moved to Chicago. Technically, the Brewers played one of their scheduled 81 home games in Chicago. The Royals had two of their games transfered to Chicago because weather problems.

The White Sox did play home games in Milwaukee in 1968 and 1969. Despite having snapped a streak of 17 winning seasons in 1968 after nearly going to the World Series in 1967, there were heavy rumors the Sox were moving to Milwaukee.

The Sox played nine games in County Stadium in 1968, going 1-8. They played 11 games in County Stadium in 1969, going 7-4. The Milwaukee crowds were far better in every way than the Chicago crowds. I believe the only crowds exceeding 16,000 in 1969 were for the games in Milwaukee. For example, on Monday, July 7, 1969, the Sox drew 26,659 for a day game against the A's in County Stadium, which they won 2-0. On July 8, the Sox split a single-gate Tuesday afternoon doubleheader against Oakland, before a paid crowd of 8,203.