PDA

View Full Version : Worst White Sox team since?


It's Time
09-01-2007, 10:43 PM
To those of you who grew up in the 60's or 70's, where does the current White Sox team rank with some of the inept teams of those decades?

Calling this team embarrassing is an insult to the word embarrassing.

Lip Man 1
09-01-2007, 10:51 PM
The 1970 team was the worst I've ever seen and like with this club it was shocking they lost as many games as they did.

Look at the names of some of the guys on that club...Aparicio, Horlen, Peters, John, Herrmann, Berry, Wood...those were quality players.

Like with this club the bullpen (save for Wood) was a wreck, they had no speed (thanks to some really dumb trades of guys like Al Weis, Don Buford and Tommy Agee and the back end of the rotation was a mess.

Still a month to go but this club may wind up close to that 1970 team, perhaps even worse in one sense...two years before 1970 the Sox did not win the World Series.

The 1968-69 and 1976, 78-79 clubs were really bad as well.

Lip

Grzegorz
09-01-2007, 10:57 PM
There was another thread where the poster said that they didn't know if the 2007 version of the CWS was the worst team in their memory but it was the most embarrassing.

I concur; this team is the most embarrassing in memory.

JB98
09-01-2007, 11:02 PM
Pick any of the clubs from 1986 through 1989. I was just a little guy then, but I remember things being pretty hopeless during that era.

Certainly, this is my worst season ever as a Sox fan. I've never felt worse about the club and its direction.

Noneck
09-01-2007, 11:19 PM
1970

thomas35forever
09-02-2007, 12:42 AM
Since I've started following baseball? Probably 1999.

Brian26
09-02-2007, 12:45 AM
Now probably the worst I can remember since 1988.

TornLabrum
09-02-2007, 01:09 AM
1970 by far.

JB98
09-02-2007, 01:11 AM
1970 by far.

Hal, do you think this is the worst Sox team since 1970?

TornLabrum
09-02-2007, 01:15 AM
I'm going to have to think about that for awhile. '78-'79 and the late '80s teams were all pretty bad. But this team is in the same category of crappiness.

JB98
09-02-2007, 01:21 AM
I'm going to have to think about that for awhile. '78-'79 and the late '80s teams were all pretty bad. But this team is in the same category of crappiness.

I'm just really curious what some of the fans a generation older than I am think.

I know my White Sox history pretty well, and certainly, we've sunk to depths now that we haven't seen in nearly 20 years. In 1988, my 12-year-old mind knew the Sox sucked, but being a kid I wasn't as analytical about the team or the games then as I am now.

So it's hard for me to say with certainty that we're worse now that we were in the late 1980s. All I know is the records sure look pretty similar.

nccwsfan
09-02-2007, 01:48 AM
The 88'-89' teams had less talent and were very bad- they were worse than the 07' White Sox. However no team has been a bigger disappointment than the 2007 White Sox...

Nellie_Fox
09-02-2007, 01:56 AM
However no team has been a bigger disappointment than the 2007 White Sox...'84 Sox were close.

Noneck
09-02-2007, 02:08 AM
I'm just really curious what some of the fans a generation older than I am think.

I know my White Sox history pretty well, and certainly, we've sunk to depths now that we haven't seen in nearly 20 years. In 1988, my 12-year-old mind knew the Sox sucked, but being a kid I wasn't as analytical about the team or the games then as I am now.

So it's hard for me to say with certainty that we're worse now that we were in the late 1980s. All I know is the records sure look pretty similar.

OK, I'll add to Lip Mans comments about 1970. Melton had a good year also with over 30 Homers. The catching was also good with Herman and Josephson platooning. Little Looie had an All Star year. I also believe that was year the Sox had cyclone fences in left and right field. Horlen was getting near the end of his career and Gary Peters was not on the team.. Carlos May was now a banjo hitter after losing his thumb but had a decent year. Tommy John pitched ok but didn't get run support. Gail Hopkins had his best year ever. (he was a Mark Grace like 1st baseman) The bench was very weak that year. On paper it wasn't that bad of a team. The highlight of the season to me was listening to Billy Pierce pronounce Jerry Janeski with his lisp.

LITTLE NELL
09-02-2007, 05:52 AM
68.69.and 70 was the lowest point since Ive been a Sox fan (1953). Not only were the teams bad,but the attendence was worse. Making it even worse was that the Flubs were having their best stretch of baseball since the mid 40s.

Hitmen77
09-02-2007, 11:06 AM
In both '89 and '99, I at least felt during those seasons that the Sox had a lot of young talent and that the team would improve drastically in the near future - which they did in both cases.

This year, I don't have that confidence - which makes '07 worse to me. The only players I'm hopeful to really break out next year after going through their rookie struggles this year are Fields and Danks. Otherwise, we have to hope our aging veterans all just had down years this year and are set to rebound in '08.

To answer the question, I'd say this is the worst team since '88.

Brian26
09-02-2007, 12:04 PM
The 88'-89' teams had less talent and were very bad- they were worse than the 07' White Sox. However no team has been a bigger disappointment than the 2007 White Sox...

You hit the nail on the head here. If you go back and look at the roster of the 1988 team, there's no comparison. The starting five back then was Ricky Horton, Dave LaPoint, Jerry Reuss, Bill Long and some combination of Jeff Bittiger and Melido Perez. The starting lineup had guys like Lyons, Manrique and Dave Gallagher (and not due to injuries of the normal starting players).

cards press box
09-02-2007, 12:36 PM
1970. The Sox had been a top A.L. team for two decades with 17 straight winning seasons from 1951 through 1967, a pennant, several 90 win seasons and several exciting pennant races. Oddly enough, the Sox had a downturn in '69 and '70 just when the Cubs, like our friends the cicadas, emerged from a lengthy hibernation from the N.L.'s second division (from 1945 through 1966). This made the collapse of the '70 Sox hurt all the more. That and the fact that speculators from Milwaukee were anxious to buy the Sox from the Allyn family and move them to Wisconsin.

But don't forget -- two years after 1970, Dick Allen won an MVP and the Sox battled the A's all the way to the last week of September for the division. With a healthy Bill Melton, would the Sox have won the pennant in '72?

I know that the Sox were awful this year but they do have a solid core of starting pitching. That's a great place to start rebuilding. I have a hunch they will be back in the A.L. elite before you know it.

Lip Man 1
09-02-2007, 12:46 PM
No Neck was correct with his comments about Gary Peters. I had confused 1969 with 1970.

He was with the Red Sox, where he promptly won 16 games in 1970.

Many will say the 1976 was the 'worst' Sox team ever and they were very, very bad but consider this...they had a ten game win streak and went through a stretch where they won something like 15 of 18 games.

That's something this club couldn't even dream about.

Still when all was said and done it was 1970 in my lifetime.

Lip

Dick Allen
09-02-2007, 12:53 PM
No Neck was correct with his comments about Gary Peters. I had confused 1969 with 1970.

He was with the Red Sox, where he promptly won 16 games in 1970.

Many will say the 1976 was the 'worst' Sox team ever and they were very, very bad but consider this...they had a ten game win streak and went through a stretch where they won something like 15 of 18 games.

That's something this club couldn't even dream about.

Still when all was said and done it was 1970 in my lifetime.

LipI think some of those players (Berry, Horlen, etc.) were close to the end of their careers. Even Looie, who hit .313 that year, only stuck around a couple more years. I expected nothing out of that team, unlike the current year's version.

HerzogVon
09-02-2007, 01:04 PM
68.69.and 70 was the lowest point since Ive been a Sox fan (1953). Not only were the teams bad,but the attendence was worse. Making it even worse was that the Flubs were having their best stretch of baseball since the mid 40s.

I agree completely, but that was a three year span following a heartbreaking run in 1967. Plus, the spectre of what appeared to be an imminent move to Milwaukee hung over the entire organization. This time, we're only two years removed from a WS triumph and there is no talk about the franchise going anywhere. IMO, that makes the entire mess that much more of an inexcusable embarrassment.

btw - You and I started at just about the same time.

Lip Man 1
09-02-2007, 01:04 PM
Dick:

True, but collectively there was talent on that team plus they were playing in a division with two recent expansion teams (Kansas City - Seattle/Milwaukee) there were some legit reasons to hope for a decent season.

They promptly fell apart.
-----
Also one other factor this year has been injuries and the Sox had a lot... however in fairness the Twins suffered a number of injuries, many to their bullpen and Liriano was out for the year, they could still finish over .500.

The Yankees were being laughed at because of the number of minor league pitchers they were calling up. It seemed their pitchers were going on the DL daily, yet they might make the playoffs again, certainly win 90 games or so.

How were those two teams able to overcome numerous serious injuries while the Sox couldn't?

Lip

TomBradley72
09-02-2007, 01:40 PM
In terms of "this is the worst team since..."....I'd go with 1986...the infamous "The Hawk Wants You" year. Why? Because unlike other bad teams that were at least young, with some emerging talent (1988/89)...this was an old team with washed up veterans added to the mix during the season (Carlton, Foster). It was alot like the 2007 White Sox in that you could look at the overall lineup and think it should be a .500 team. We had Bonilla, Baines, Guillen, Cruz, Fisk, Walker, Kittle in the line up, we had Dotson, Bannister, Deleon, James in the pitching staff...

PaleHoseGeorge
09-02-2007, 01:42 PM
Most disappointing Sox team? Perhaps. Expectations were pretty high last April, less than two years removed from Chicago's first baseball championship in over 88 years. NO Sox team in 4 generations ever competed with that big of a legacy... not even any of the hallowed "Go-Go" teams of the 50's/60's.

But the worst Sox team since...? That's just fans indulging in overblown hyperbole.

I'm not surprise...

Noneck
09-02-2007, 01:53 PM
I think some of those players (Berry, Horlen, etc.) were close to the end of their careers. Even Looie, who hit .313 that year, only stuck around a couple more years.


Kinda like Thome, Dye, Erstand, Pod and Contreras? This years starting DH, Rf, Cf, Lf and opening day pitcher?

TomBradley72
09-02-2007, 02:25 PM
But the worst Sox team since...? That's just fans indulging in overblown hyperbole.

I'm not surprise...

The 2007 White Sox have a .419 winning percentage and the 29th best record out of 30 major league teams.

The last White Sox team to have a .419 winning percentage over a full season was the 1976 team (31 years ago), even the 1969 White Sox had a .420 winning percentage. Only three teams since 1950 (57 years) have had a record worse than the 2007 White Sox.

In fact, it's only happened 12 previous times in the 107 year history of the franchise:

1921
1929
1930
1931
1932
1934
1948
1949
1950
1968
1970
1976
2007

FloridaTigers
09-02-2007, 02:31 PM
You've White Sox fans had it lucky compared to the Tigers fans. Last year was the FIRST winning season I can remember and actually follow.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-02-2007, 03:36 PM
T.

The last White Sox team to have a .419 winning percentage over a full season was the 1976 team (31 years ago), even the 1969 White Sox had a .420 winning percentage. Only three teams since 1950 (57 years) have had a record worse than the 2007 White Sox. ....

THANK YOU!!!

The term "worst" can be easily measured in baseball strictly by winning percentage. Winning 42% of their games would make this the WORST Sox team since 1976. Comparing the 2007 team to Bill Veeck's collection of garbage is a bit pointless, but there can be no arguing the relatively similar amount of on-field success each achieved.

The real issue here is DISAPPOINTMENT, but that would mean Sox Fans need to own up for their own culpability over why they are so pissed off right now. Thus they indulge in over the top hyperbole like "worst".

Sox
09-02-2007, 03:57 PM
The 1970 team was the worst I've ever seen and like with this club it was shocking they lost as many games as they did.

Look at the names of some of the guys on that club...Aparicio, Horlen, Peters, John, Herrmann, Berry, Wood...those were quality players.

Like with this club the bullpen (save for Wood) was a wreck, they had no speed (thanks to some really dumb trades of guys like Al Weis, Don Buford and Tommy Agee and the back end of the rotation was a mess.

Still a month to go but this club may wind up close to that 1970 team, perhaps even worse in one sense...two years before 1970 the Sox did not win the World Series.

The 1968-69 and 1976, 78-79 clubs were really bad as well.

Lip

I would agree with your overall statement. Those 70 something teams seemed destined to be forever remembered as lovable losers. Year after year it was the same old thing with the mindset we'll get em next year. It seemed like the WhiteSox would never win a World Series in my lifetime. Two years after winning the World Series it seems that the Sox have imploded.
I just don't get it or understand it.:dunno:

Brian26
09-02-2007, 05:28 PM
The real issue here is DISAPPOINTMENT, but that would mean Sox Fans need to own up for their own culpability over why they are so pissed off right now. Thus they indulge in over the top hyperbole like "worst".

I'm more disappointed about last year's team and its inability to make the post-season. This year isn't about disappointment, because, quite frankly, expectations were not as high.

I find no fault in talking about this team in comparison to other historically putrid teams in Sox history. This is a discussion forum, and it's a perfectly fair topic, and hardly hyperbole.

JB98
09-02-2007, 05:48 PM
I'm more disappointed about last year's team and its inability to make the post-season. This year isn't about disappointment, because, quite frankly, expectations were not as high.

I find no fault in talking about this team in comparison to other historically putrid teams in Sox history. This is a discussion forum, and it's a perfectly fair topic, and hardly hyperbole.

We've talked all season about how much talent we supposedly have here. I don't know how much talent we actually have. To me, this roster is very top-heavy. The top 8-10 guys on the club are quite good, although most are having subpar years by their standards. The guys 11-25 on this roster stack up pretty comparably from what I remember in the late 1980s.

Again, I was 12 years old in 1988, so I'll admit that my analysis of that era is maybe not as sharp. In my adult life, I certainly don't recall a sorrier Sox team than this lot. Nothing in the late 1990s was this bad.

I share your opinion that last year was more disappointing. At this time last season, I still felt we could get in the playoffs. I was letdown when that didn't happen. This year, all rational hope for postseason play ended in late June. By this point, I've had a lot of time to get used to the fact that the team stinks this year.

viagracat
09-02-2007, 11:38 PM
Not only did the 1970 Sox go 56-106 :o:, but there was a LOT of talk about them leaving town back then, and to make things even worse, the Cubs were rolling (well, sort of) during that time. Chicago was truly a one-horse town in those days.

But IIRC, that team was not really expected to do anything, and they more than lived down to those expectations. The 2007 squad was supposed to at least compete. That makes this year's team if not the worst I've seen, probably the most disappointing one I've ever suffered with.

Jurr
09-03-2007, 12:43 AM
In my opinion, the 2001 team was more disappointing, though not as bad record-wise. It may just be me, but the 2005 season has insulated me from the absolute agony that this season would have otherwise caused. In 2000, we could smell greatness in the distance, and we thought that the addition of Boomer Wells was just going to ice the cake. Oops. It was yet another year of sorrow, which reminded most of the dreaded '84 Sox.

This year has shown off the worst product I've seen in many moons, but it just doesn't hurt as bad since '05.

Tragg
09-03-2007, 12:50 AM
This isn't the most disappionting year.....1973 was probably my biggest disappointment (followed by 2005 [edit, uh 2006}, 1968, 1984, 1995, 2001, 1974, 1981, 1982).
As for bad teams, it seems that we're always bad at the end of a decade, at least since the 60s. it's hard for me to evaluate the relative baddness.

Procol Harum
09-03-2007, 10:14 AM
Getting in late on this thread but I'll echo a lot of what has been said, with a few twists.

As a gaffer, I can say that the 1970 Sox team was the most horrid bunch that I ever saw take the field. Lip mentioned the number of really good players on that team, but we had seen them unravel over the previous two seasons and so we were fairly aware that most of these guys seemed over the hill--in that sense 1968 was the shocker, by the beginning of the 1970 season Sox fans' had zero expectations. On top of the decline of guys like Horlen, John, Berry, etc. the lack of team speed, poor defense, and strikeout-prone profile of all of our younger players (Melton, Hopkins, May, Herrmann) and the lack of any signs of promising pitching made things really dismal. And of course, the concurrent rise of the Cubs and the poor financial health of the Sox only made things worse.

On the "disappointment" score, I'd say it's a toss-up between the '84 team and this year's squad. We were all expecting a chance to get back to the playoffs in '84--and by the All-Star break it was looking like we were making our move. But then it all fell apart. The utterly horrific fate of this year's team is a shocker and a disappointment--at least last year we were in the race until September. To fall this far and this fast from World Champeens to vying for the worst record in MLB in just two years is mind-boggling.

FarWestChicago
09-03-2007, 10:30 AM
This isn't the most disappionting year.....1973 was probably my biggest disappointment (followed by 2005, 1968, 1984, 1995, 2001, 1974, 1981, 1982).I guess you took that one playoff loss pretty hard in 2005. :o:

Tragg
09-03-2007, 10:41 AM
I guess you took that one playoff loss pretty hard in 2005. :o:
Ouch - 2006.
I expected an undefeated team in 2005!.

TommyJohn
09-03-2007, 11:55 AM
Although I was on the planet in 1970, I was too little to appreciate the
awfulness of that year's White Sox team. The worst White Sox team in
my lifetime after that has to be 1984. Sure they didn't go 56-106, but
they were the surest thing in the history of sure things. They even had
a crappy commercial with Chubby Checker singing "Let's Do It Again!"
while some dork leaped out of his seat and flashed his "Let's Do It Again!"
shirt. Aaargh. Only 2005 has managed to ease the memeory of that
debacle.

Another year no one has mentioned is 1987. That version of the White Sox
was truly the most maddening team in my lifetime. They had one of the
worst records in baseball at the All-Star break and one of the best ones
after it. This team at one point WAS on a pace to equal the 1970 team
standard for badness. Then in the second half they rallied to finish at
77-85, pretty good considering that they were 55-75 on August 31st.
They only finished 8 games back in the crappy AL West that year, leaving
many to groan and moan about "if, if if."

TDog
09-03-2007, 01:16 PM
I came of age as a White Sox fan in 1970 and remember it vividly. I remember my father saying during a telvised 1967 Red Sox game (on NBC, I think) that if this man catches the pup up, the Sox won't go to the World Series. I remember a man on the WBBM-TV saying "they're dancing in the streets on the southside of Chicago" on the day the Sox won their first game in 1968 to go 1-10. I remember listening to 1969 games on the radio, becoming a great fan of Carlos May who hit a grand slam of Sparky Lyle on an NBC Monday night game to beat the Red Sox 6-4 in Fenway (after Walt "No-Neck" Williams and Looie Aparico drove in runs with infield hits). I cried myself to sleep when in August Bob Elson said Carlos May had injured his hand during his two-week military service leave and probably wouldn't be back.

But 1970 was the season when the White Sox became the big thing in my life. I was at the park ion the first Sunday afternoon in April when Carlos May hit his first home run since his injury. The had the worst defensive team in the league, yet had gold glove winners at short and center. They had a former gold glover at second and had a very good defensive catcher.

Joe Horlen had ceased being an effective pitcher by 1970. The only decent starter they had was Tommy John. After that, every day was a pitching challenge with Jerry Janeski, Jerry Crider, Barry Moore etc. Wilbur Wood was the best reliever and pitched almost half the games. At the plate he went 1-for-2 in an 11-run ninth inning in a game he won in Fenway. Floyd Weaver got a win by pitching the last five innings and getting hit hard in a 22-13 win in Fenway. it was his only win of the season and the last of his career. A number of players never made the majors again after that season. Johnny Matias, who my freshman English teacher years later would say never got a chance, hit almost .500 in spring training and beat out Williams to start in right field be foe going on to hit under .200 for the year. Bill Melton began starting in right on July 17 when I was celebrating my 13th birthday with friends in great seats at Comiskey. The Sox lost, of course.

Melton set a team record for home runs. There were some exciting games, many of which were lost -- especially against the A's. But Nancy Faust started playing the organ. The whole Milwaukee threat was over with the Brewers getting a team in 1970 (losing 12-0 to the Angels in their opener while the White Sox were losing 12-0 to the Twins in theirs.) Winning didn't matter. It was just about enjoying baseball.

Baseball didn't become disappointing until there was a chance of going to the postseason in 1972. When injuries gutted the Sox chances in 1973, that was disappointing. When the four-month magic of 1977 appeared only for a few weeks in 1978, that was disappointing. When the White Sox, sitting in first place at the break in 1984 went on to tank for the rest of the year, that was disappointing. Every season between 2000 and 2005 were disappointing.

Disappointment is the mode of the White Sox, most of baseball for that matter. It's our heritage as White Sox fans, fans of most teams, really. When the Cubs went 66-96 in 2006, it wasn't the end of the world for their fans.

I love the Sox, but this is just another losing season. It's not going to kill me.

Bucky F. Dent
09-04-2007, 08:19 AM
The real issue here is DISAPPOINTMENT


Agree with this statement completely. It's one thing to be below .500 with a roster made up of the Jerry Dybzinski's and Alan Bannister's of the world. It's another thing to do it with a squad that should have, at the very least, been making a legitimate run at the playoffs right now.

HerzogVon
09-04-2007, 09:36 AM
>>I remember a man on the WBBM-TV saying "they're dancing in the streets on the southside of Chicago" on the day the Sox won their first game in 1968 to go 1-10.<<

The start of the 1968 season had to be THE most frustrating in all my years as a Sox fan. 1967 had ended in agonizing disappointment , but '68 seemed to hold so much promise. Then, the parade of losses began. It was my Junior year at a small Wisconsin college. Day after day I sat alone in the basement of North House, watching in stunned disbelief. Pop cans were increasingly hurled at the lone B&W TV. This simply could not be happening!

Little did I know then that this was only the beginning of a long nightmare that would only end with the arrival of Harry Caray.

"When I was young, it was more important.
Pain more painful, laugh a lot louder...yeah!
When I was young"

Eric Burdon

NoNeckEra
09-04-2007, 09:54 AM
I've been honestly thinking about this question for the last month or so, since I'm 52 and went to about 25 games as a high school kid in '70.

And I've come to the conclusion that considering today's environment of players being in better shape, and that Ozzie is a better motivator that '70 manager Don Gutteridge, this is a worse team that the '70 club.

I may be confusing "worse" for "more disappointing" but I've seen some really, really bad ball this year, and worse than that, predictably bad ball. We all know what's going to happen before it transpires this year, and none of it is good.

We see the White Sox take on Boston or Cleveland and it's not even a contest.

You don't lose 106 games, like they did in '70 and not play horribly. Don't get me wrong. But they had their moments.

There isn't one player on this 2007 team having even an average year.

So a salute to the 2007 White Sox: Worst Sox team of my lifetime.

TomBradley72
09-04-2007, 10:44 AM
I think we may all be in denial on how truly awful this year's White Sox team really is.

Regulars (>100 games) with a batting average >.250:

2007 White Sox

Jim Thome- .268
AJ Pierzynski- .264
Paul Konerko- .2641976 White Sox:

Ralph Garr- .300
Jorge Orta- .274
Bill Stein- .268
Brian Downing- .256
Pat Kelly- .254
Jim Spencer- .253
Jack Brohamer- .251Team Stats (1976/2007):

Team Batting Average: Ranked 7th of 12/Ranked Last of 14
Team Runs Scored: Ranked 10th of 12/Ranked Last of 14
Team ERA: Ranked 12th of 12/Ranked 13th of 14
Team Fielding Average: Ranked 4th of 12/Ranked 12th of 14

PKalltheway
09-04-2007, 11:06 AM
This is easily the worst Sox team of my lifetime, or at least the worst that I can remember. The '99 team wasn't all that great, but this one is considerably worse, given their high expectations earlier this year. I'm just glad that I wasn't around to witness the 1976 and 1970 teams.:o:

Even though I wasn't around in 1970, and this team is AWFUL this year, I don't know how on earth this year's team could even compare to 1970. I mean, they lost 106 games that year. Think of it this way, if the Sox lost all of their remaining games this season, they STILL would have a better record than the 1970 team.

johnr1note
09-04-2007, 11:56 AM
I think we may all be in denial on how truly awful this year's White Sox team really is.

Regulars (>100 games) with a batting average >.250:

2007 White Sox
Jim Thome- .268
AJ Pierzynski- .264
Paul Konerko- .2641976 White Sox:
Ralph Garr- .300
Jorge Orta- .274
Bill Stein- .268
Brian Downing- .256
Pat Kelly- .254
Jim Spencer- .253
Jack Brohamer- .251Team Stats (1976/2007):
Team Batting Average: Ranked 7th of 12/Ranked Last of 14
Team Runs Scored: Ranked 10th of 12/Ranked Last of 14
Team ERA: Ranked 12th of 12/Ranked 13th of 14
Team Fielding Average: Ranked 4th of 12/Ranked 12th of 14

You may be on to something here. Let's look at the 1970 team as well, and add pitching to the mix.

If you look at the 1970 team, and look at the hitters who played in at least 100 games, greater than .250 average, this is what you get:

Hopkins: .286
Melton: .263
Aparicio: .313
May: .285
Berry: .276
W. Williams: .251
(throw in Ed Hermann too, who played in 96 games and batted .283)

Now lets look at the ERA for the starting pitchers (at least 100 innings) and the primary relief corps of the 2007, 1976, and 1970 White Sox:

2007:

Buehrle: 3.47 Jenks: 2.72
Vazquez: 3.91 Logan 4.33
Garland: 4.89 Thornton: 5.21
Danks: 5.41 McDougal: 6.49
Contrares: 5.86 Masset: 7.09

1976:

Brett: 3.32 Hamilton: 3.79
Gossage: 3.94 Carroll: 2.56
Forster: 4.37 Barrios: 4.32
Johnson: 4.73 Vukovich 4.65

1970:

John: 3.27 Wood: 2.81
Janeski: 4.77 Murphy: 5.69
Horlen: 4.86 Crider: 4.45
Moore: 6.47

Now, I remember that 1970 staff being much worse than it looks on paper.

But let's be real. Statistically, this 2007 team is stacking up to the worst teams in Sox history, at least since WWII.

JB98
09-04-2007, 01:59 PM
I think we may all be in denial on how truly awful this year's White Sox team really is.

Regulars (>100 games) with a batting average >.250:

2007 White Sox

Jim Thome- .268
AJ Pierzynski- .264
Paul Konerko- .2641976 White Sox:

Ralph Garr- .300
Jorge Orta- .274
Bill Stein- .268
Brian Downing- .256
Pat Kelly- .254
Jim Spencer- .253
Jack Brohamer- .251Team Stats (1976/2007):

Team Batting Average: Ranked 7th of 12/Ranked Last of 14
Team Runs Scored: Ranked 10th of 12/Ranked Last of 14
Team ERA: Ranked 12th of 12/Ranked 13th of 14
Team Fielding Average: Ranked 4th of 12/Ranked 12th of 14


I think quite a few here overestimate the talent on this 2007 team. I've often read posts from people claiming that a team with this much talent shouldn't be this bad. Well, let's take a hard look at this roster.

Among the position players, I'll spot you Konerko, Thome, Dye and AJ. Among the pitchers, I'll give you Buehrle, Javy, Gar and Jenks. Subtract those eight men and look at the other 17 on the roster. Do they stack up with the other clubs in our division talent-wise? IMO, absolutely not.

What we are lacking here is depth of talent. Almost every game, I feel like Konerko and Thome had better get something done. Because if they don't, we aren't doing **** offensively.

We've lost that feeling than any one of 25 men could be the hero on a given day. We have basically eight players that we can count on, and Fields shows flashes a couple times a week. Other than that, where is all this "talent" that people are talking about?

TommyJohn
09-04-2007, 07:44 PM
THANK YOU!!!


The real issue here is DISAPPOINTMENT, but that would mean Sox Fans need to own up for their own culpability over why they are so pissed off right now. Thus they indulge in over the top hyperbole like "worst".


Hmmm. Well, when you say disappointment I think of a team that came close
raised everyone's hopes, then blew it down the stretch or in the postseason.
I wrote a thread on this once and named the famed teams from 1964, 1967,
1983, 2003, etc.

If you are saying disappointment in terms of "high preseason expectations
followed by falling flat on their faces and sucking badly" then I stick with
my original choice of 1984. 2007 as "disappointment" does not even come
close to the crushing disappointment of 1984. That team was expected to
breeze it's way to the World Series and dominate for years to come.
Instead of course they collapsed and spent the rest of the decade hanging
out in the nether regions of the AL West. At least the team finally reached
the Series and won in 2005. That eases the disappointment of 2007. And
there might be hope for 2008. Who knows, they can get dramatically better
next year with the right moves. It has happened before.

Jurr
09-04-2007, 08:15 PM
Hmmm. Well, when you say disappointment I think of a team that came close
raised everyone's hopes, then blew it down the stretch or in the postseason.
I wrote a thread on this once and named the famed teams from 1964, 1967,
1983, 2003, etc.

If you are saying disappointment in terms of "high preseason expectations
followed by falling flat on their faces and sucking badly" then I stick with
my original choice of 1984. 2007 as "disappointment" does not even come
close to the crushing disappointment of 1984. That team was expected to
breeze it's way to the World Series and dominate for years to come.
Instead of course they collapsed and spent the rest of the decade hanging
out in the nether regions of the AL West. At least the team finally reached
the Series and won in 2005. That eases the disappointment of 2007. And
there might be hope for 2008. Who knows, they can get dramatically better
next year with the right moves. It has happened before.
Agreed. The one thing that separates this team from other teams that go through the typical monster losing season is good old American capital.
Look at the Cubs. They were awful last year, and spent money to get better. This is something that teams like Pittsburgh, TB, and KC cannot do. Though I don't see the Sox making crazy moves like the north siders did, they will be able to address problem areas easier than other last place clubs, thus giving us hope in the near future. Just get this damn season over with already!

Tragg
09-04-2007, 11:08 PM
This team still has a really good core of starting pitching that those 1970s teams sorely lacked. Good starters can take you a long way. Our starters are having, overall, mediocre year.....but they're good pitchers.

On the other hand, the bullpen is terrible. That can be fixed.

Even worse, is Ozzie's attempted conversion of the Sox to a slap hitting team. The entire bench and a couple of starting positions were manned by hitters devoid of power and devoid of obp, ozzie-style. And, predictably, it failed miserably. We dumped 2 players who could hit homers in the high teens and kept the low obp hitters who hit 5 or less homers. All we have now are Dye, Thome and Konerko, with AJ a cut below, but still okay. That is way below par offense.

Ozzie still seems wed to the slap-hitting up and down the lineup approach, despite its abject impotence in 2007.

A. Cavatica
09-05-2007, 12:03 AM
Although I vaguely remember the 1976 team, I'm better equipped to compare this team to the 1980 team (70-90, .438) and the 1989 team (69-92, .429).

The 1980 team had the weakest offensive unit I've ever seen. The Sox regularly trotted out duds like Jim Morrison, Bruce Kimm, Mike Squires, Kevin Bell, Todd Cruz, Thad Bosley, Lamar Johnson, Bob Molinaro, and Greg Pryor. Chet Lemon was the only good position player, and Harold Baines (age 21) was the only position prospect who ever amounted to anything.

The pitching staff was even younger, but it had some future stars. 21-year-old Britt Burns went 15-13, 2.84; 21-year old Rich Dotson went 12-10, 4.27; 25-year old LaMarr Hoyt went 9-3, 4.57. Steve Trout and Ross Baumgarten were also on that team.

The 1981 team made it to .500, by replacing five of the worst hitters with
Carlton Fisk, Greg Luzinski, Ron LeFlore, Tony Bernazard, and Bill Almon; by adding Dennis Lamp; and by banking on the improvement of Baines and the young pitchers.

The 1989 team had more offense, in the form of Fisk, Baines, Greg Walker, and Ivan Calderon, although Baines was the only one to have a good year. Journeymen and defensive specialists filled out the lineup (Steve Lyons, Carlos Martinez, Ozzie, Dave Gallagher, Daryl Boston). They had a veteran bench (Ron Kittle, Dan Pasqua, Ron Karkovice, Scott Fletcher) but gave tryouts to Sammy Sosa, Lance Johnson & Robin Ventura.

There was a new crop of young starters (Melido Perez, Eric King, Greg Hibbard, Steve Rosenberg, Shawn Hillegas) to go with 40-year-old Jerry Reuss and 30-year-old Rich Dotson. Bobby Thigpen led a young but reasonably successful bullpen.

The 1990 team rebounded to 94-68, but the turnaround formula was pure pitching. The bullpen led the way: Thigpen had 57 saves, Barry Jones went 11-4/2.31, and Donn Pall, Ken Patterson, & Wayne Edwards all pitched well. Perez, King, and Hibbard improved; Jack McDowell broke in (14-9); and Alex Fernandez & Scott Radinsky had their major league debuts. Except for Frank Thomas, who had 191 AB and posted a .983 OPS, the hitting still sucked. Torborg was given a lot of credit at the time for his managerial skills.

Could either formula work for the 2008 Sox? It depends. We have four open lineup spots and a GM who isn't shy about dealing, but it will be prohibitively expensive to sign the equivalent of Fisk/Luzinski/Bernazard. I'm pretty sure our hitting prospects are closer to Thad Bosley than Harold Baines. I don't see any 21-year-olds in our system who could make the jump, and our manager isn't the nurturing type.

On the other hand, we have good starters, a closer, and lots of good pitching prospects. It's easy to imagine us putting the pitching staff back together.

The 1990 model fits us better, but I'll be very disappointed if we don't replace at least three position players.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-08-2007, 09:52 AM
This team still has a really good core of starting pitching that those 1970s teams sorely lacked. Good starters can take you a long way. Our starters are having, overall, mediocre year.....but they're good pitchers.

On the other hand, the bullpen is terrible. That can be fixed.

Exactly. It's really pointless to do position by position assessments of one lousy team vs. another. The potential for being a winner is always tied to how much better the 4-5 everyday starters are over the competition's.

Fixing a weak bullpen is easy; fixing a weak starting rotation isn't.

We're disappointed with the '07 Sox for good reason: they had far greater potential than these weak Sox teams of the past simply for possessing a superior rotation.

35th&Shields
09-08-2007, 09:54 AM
Pick any of the clubs from 1986 through 1989. I was just a little guy then, but I remember things being pretty hopeless during that era.

Certainly, this is my worst season ever as a Sox fan. I've never felt worse about the club and its direction.

1989 was the worst that I remember well (I was 14). However, this is the most disappointed I've ever been in a team that I followed. It would be one thing if there wasn't any talent on this team, but there is. They won 90 games last year and a World Series the year before. It's very depressing.

Brian26
09-08-2007, 11:29 AM
Pick any of the clubs from 1986 through 1989. I was just a little guy then, but I remember things being pretty hopeless during that era.

I think Dave LaPoint was one of our best starters in '87 (other than Bannister, who was leaving as a free agent). Ricky Horton was the Opening Day starter in '88. Jerry Reuss was the Opening Day starter in '89. If that's not an indication that our starting rotation was god awful bad back then, I don't know what is.

TomBradley72
09-08-2007, 12:41 PM
Fixing a weak bullpen is easy; fixing a weak starting rotation isn't.


If it's easy why has it been such a big problem the last two seasons?

I disagree with the assessment of the starting rotation....after Buehrle and Vazquez...our #3 (Garland) has an ERA of 4.75, our #4 (Danks) has an ERA of 5.41, and our #5 (Contreras) has an ERA of 5.86. Looks like the rotation of a last place team to me.

I hope KW is facing the reality of the fact that we are an aging, last place team, with a mediocre farm system and minimal trade bait.

Grzegorz
09-08-2007, 12:59 PM
Fixing a weak bullpen is easy; fixing a weak starting rotation isn't.

If it's easy why has it been such a big problem the last two seasons?

Because starters are the lynchpin of any successful baseball team. Without a great bunch of starters a bullpen doesn't matter.

As far as bullpens go, I believe finding the right pieces comes down to a little bit of research and a whole bunch of luck.

Lip Man 1
09-08-2007, 01:12 PM
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
09-08-2007, 02:05 PM
I believe finding the right pieces comes down to a little bit of research and a whole bunch of luck.

Yep. Getting 4 quality starters has very little to do with luck. Getting 5 quality relievers does.

And Branch Rickey was nothing exceptional besides being his own best publicist.

:cool:

A.T. Money
09-09-2007, 11:59 AM
What I see here is a parallel with 1989. The Sox are brutal, and the Cubs are in first place.

Tough year to get through.

LongLiveFisk
09-09-2007, 12:38 PM
What I see here is a parallel with 1989. The Sox are brutal, and the Cubs are in first place.

Tough year to get through.

I was just going to mention that. For those of you not old enough to remember 1989, you're pretty much living it now. :(:

TornLabrum
09-09-2007, 02:26 PM
I was just going to mention that. For those of you not old enough to remember 1989, you're pretty much living it now. :(:

I beg to differ. In 1989 there was hope coming up through the farm system. Ventura made his debut. Thomas, McDowell, and Fernandez were waiting in the wings. Himes was near the end of a series of great first-round draft picks (although we didn't know it then).

I remember the last month or two of the season as being hopeful. Right now, I just feel like we suck.

whitesoxfan1986
09-09-2007, 10:06 PM
This is the worst team Sox team that I have seen in my life. I was too young to remember any of the ****ty late 80s teams. I had gone to games during the early 90s, at least 2 per summer until the strike. My dad was so sure that the Sox were going to win it all that year that we stopped following baseball until Roiders assaulted the single season HR record. At that point, the Sox were a rebuilding team so we didn't watch many of the games. In 2000, I watched the ALDS and that was the first time I really followed baseball. After getting embarassed by Seattle, My dad, uncle, and I got a couple of UD seats to the home opener the next year against IIRC Detroit. I think Dave Mlicki was the pitcher for them and Parque for the Sox. The Sox lost that game, and the season was pretty average after that, so I really didn't watch. In 2003 after the Colon deal and Buehrle's excellent 2002, I decided to become more of a fan. I was now 16, and capable of intelligent sports fan thinking. Boy did I pick a bad year to do that. I got so much **** about the Flubs for 5 weeks as they won the division and got to the NLDS. I got the last laugh though, after they choked. everyone had graduated that gave me crap during 2003 by the time the Sox won it all, and I had too, so I never got to rub it in to them. I was spoiled in my first 3 years of(real) Sox fandom. I was always a fan as a kid, but never like I was in those first 3 years. And during which I saw a good team be derailed by injuries, a world series championship, and a 90 win season. After last season I thought that though it was a disappointment, we'd be right back up there this year with somewhere between 85-95 wins. I don't think anyone saw this coming. Winning percentage and performance wise, this team stacks right up there with the worst in team history. I really can't judge anything else by watching the team because I first started really following the Sox in 2003. Even though I have been a Sox fan since I was a little kid, when you're that young you can't judge things like you can when you're older.