PDA

View Full Version : 4 games into the season and not one perfect team...


Scottiehaswheels
04-05-2008, 12:59 PM
Anyone have any idea how long it's been since that has happened? Seems to me that every year, some team sprints out to an 8-0, 9-0 record to start the season? Thinking about '05 when we went wire to wire in the AL, the Cards or someone else started off 8-0.

gogosox16
04-05-2008, 01:21 PM
Anyone have any idea how long it's been since that has happened? Seems to me that every year, some team sprints out to an 8-0, 9-0 record to start the season? Thinking about '05 when we went wire to wire in the AL, the Cards or someone else started off 8-0.
The Dodgers started really hot in 05' but then the slowed down drastically

ksimpson14
04-05-2008, 01:21 PM
I haven't been drinking all of the Sox koolaid, but I was just thinking how this is a year where a team like them can come out of nowhere. Maybe a team like Toronto too. It seems like all the 'powerhouses' have plenty of question marks. Yesterday I was thinking the Angels might be my World Series pick, then they go on to get blown out by Texas, though I still think I like them in the long run.

Scottiehaswheels
04-05-2008, 01:28 PM
Yesterday I was thinking the Angels might be my World Series pick, then they go on to get blown out by Texas, though I still think I like them in the long run.
I'm with you, they've been plagued with injury thus far so who knows?

Just seems so weird that there isn't that early dominating team this year as in all the past years that I can remember.. Dodgers, Brewers, Cards, Royals are 3-1... That probably won't last with the exception of maybe the Brewcrew hopefully... Cards will probably finish 4th or 5th, Dodgers I expect to settle in 2nd place with maybe the wildcard, Royals- who knows?

Could it be the weather affecting all these teams to start? Seems to me that offensive categories are higher this year compared to last year at this time?

Scottiehaswheels
04-05-2008, 01:32 PM
The Dodgers started really hot in 05' but then the slowed down drasticallyThat's who it was. Thanks, I completely forgot about them.

mwc44
04-05-2008, 11:03 PM
Actually, there is ONE "purr-fect" team...

Detroit (http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=det) Wins 0 Losses 5 Winning Pct. .000 :wooty: :happyguy:

jcw218
04-06-2008, 11:42 AM
Actually, there is ONE "purr-fect" team...

Detroit (http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=det) Wins 0 Losses 5 Winning Pct. .000 :wooty: :happyguy:

I was thinking the same thing, purr-fectly bad that is. And I'm hoping that they stay that way today.

SoxGirl4Life
04-06-2008, 11:47 AM
Actually, there is ONE "purr-fect" team...

Detroit (http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=det) Wins 0 Losses 5 Winning Pct. .000 :wooty: :happyguy:

My thoughts exactly. Perfect is a matter of perception.

MarySwiss
04-06-2008, 01:03 PM
I was thinking the same thing, purr-fectly bad that is. And I'm hoping that they stay that way today.
Me too. I have a "purr-fect" TBGR headline if they do! :cool:

ksimpson14
04-06-2008, 05:40 PM
I'm interested in tracking the slow teams too. In this "post amphetamine" era, I wonder if there's something to starting slow. Seemed a little weird last year, with all the teams that got hot at the end and all the teams that died off. Mets with the greatest collapse, Brewers died off, Seattle and Det died off, meanwhile the Cubs, Yankees, Rockies, Phillies getting really hot in the 2nd half. Might have nothing to do with it at all, and a good team still matters, but it'll be interesting to see

TDog
04-06-2008, 06:14 PM
I'm interested in tracking the slow teams too. In this "post amphetamine" era, I wonder if there's something to starting slow. Seemed a little weird last year, with all the teams that got hot at the end and all the teams that died off. Mets with the greatest collapse, Brewers died off, Seattle and Det died off, meanwhile the Cubs, Yankees, Rockies, Phillies getting really hot in the 2nd half. Might have nothing to do with it at all, and a good team still matters, but it'll be interesting to see

In 2005, the White Sox started fast and collap ... oh, wait. They went wire to wire to finish with the league's best record. The Orioles folded up nicely, though, after a quick start. It isn't limited to the "post-amphetamine" era. The 2000 White Sox started fast and fizzled in September/October. The 1977 White Sox started fast lost first place in August and ended up finishing third 13 games behind the Royals. The 1983 White Sox started slow and ended up winning the division by 20 games.

I don't think the "post amphetamine era" has anything to do with the trend. The reasons for teams being unable to win in September after getting off to a great start -- collapsing as the 1951 Dodgers, 1964 Phillies, 1969 Cubs and 2006 Tigers did -- varies from team to team. Sometimes the summer takes its toll. It certainly did with the 1969 Cubs, who ran the same lineup out ever day -- and often caught Randy Hundley in both ends of doubleheaders. But amphetamines were in wide use in baseball in 1969, and they appear not to have been the difference.

The White Sox could have won, should have won opening day. I don't think winning would have taken more out of them than losing did.

Railsplitter
04-06-2008, 07:34 PM
No we wait to see which commes sooner; Last team to double figures in wins or last to double figures .in loses.

itsnotrequired
04-06-2008, 08:09 PM
No we wait to see which commes sooner; Last team to double figures in wins or last to double figures .in loses.

somewhere, kittle42's head explodes...

my5thbench
04-07-2008, 10:27 AM
no team that started 0&4 has ever gone on to win the World Series....sorry Tiger fans....this Sox start feels pretty darn good....they got a hustle to 'em

FedEx227
04-07-2008, 10:31 AM
somewhere, kittle42's head explodes...

:D:

Poor Kittle, someone call and make sure he's alright.