PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Tigers = 2007 White Sox?


Viva Medias B's
04-07-2008, 07:28 AM
Last night, it occurred to me that Detroit so far is a lot like we were last year. The Tigers have a powerful lineup like we did in '07, but their hitters aren't hitting. And, like us last year, their pitching has not been all that good. Anyone else notice the similarities?

itsnotrequired
04-07-2008, 07:30 AM
Last night, it occurred to me that Detroit so far is a lot like we were last year. The Tigers have a powerful lineup like we did in '07, but their hitters aren't hitting. And, like us last year, their pitching has not been all that good. Anyone else notice the similarities?

The '98 Yankees started out 0-3. I wouldn't read too much into the numbers.

CashMan
04-07-2008, 07:44 AM
The '98 Yankees started out 0-3. I wouldn't read too much into the numbers.

0-3 is different than 0-6.

itsnotrequired
04-07-2008, 07:47 AM
0-3 is different than 0-6.

It is also different than 0-4 and 0-5. If they win their next 2, they will be 2-6, the same record the 2003 Marlins had at one point.

What does all this mean? ****ing nothing.

illini81887
04-07-2008, 08:07 AM
The Tigers have better lineup than we do offensively in 07

nysox35
04-07-2008, 08:38 AM
It's too early to say this, but it really is looking similar so far.
WSox went from 99 wins and WS title to 90 wins and missing the playoffs in a solid year to a horrid 72-90 season.
Detroit went from 95 wins and a WS appearance to 88 wins and missing the playoffs in a solid year.
0-6 is too early for them to panic, but it sure is looking like the same blueprint. That said, I expect them to be very solid when it's all said and done (but not the WS favorite many made them out to be).

CashMan
04-07-2008, 08:41 AM
It is also different than 0-4 and 0-5. If they win their next 2, they will be 2-6, the same record the 2003 Marlins had at one point.

What does all this mean? ****ing nothing.



I believe, the broadcasters brought up last night, only two teams went 0-5 and made the playoffs, so once again, 0-3 is different than 0-6.

Thome25
04-07-2008, 08:42 AM
I'd have to say that before it's all said and done the 2008 Tigers = 2006 White Sox

I.E. Great hitting, no bullpen, shaky up and down starters, plenty of wins, but, no playoffs.

oeo
04-07-2008, 08:50 AM
I believe, the broadcasters brought up last night, only two teams went 0-5 and made the playoffs, so once again, 0-3 is different than 0-6.

Why should that surprise anyone? Most teams that start off 0-5 are terrible teams. That doesn't mean the Tigers can't bounce back.

I'm in no way saying they will bounce back and make the playoffs, because they have too many problems, but they're not this bad...and their early record means nothing.

I'd have to say that before it's all said and done the 2008 Tigers = 2006 White Sox

I.E. Great hitting, no bullpen, shaky up and down starters, plenty of wins, but, no playoffs.

Sounds like the 2007 Tigers to me...:dunno:

I'd say the 2008 Tigers match more of the 2007 White Sox so far because expectations came in high, and they're really struggling. We all saw last year how a bad month can snowball into a bad year. That stretch from about mid-May to July where it seemed like the bullpen was blowing the game every night really put the team in the ****ter.

infohawk
04-07-2008, 09:08 AM
The Tigers will hit eventually, they're too stacked not to. The problem is with their pitching staff. Beyond Verlander (who had a bad outing last night), I think each one of their starters has potential for shakiness. The Tigers are very unlikely to get much help from their bullpen, either. The Tigers are going to have to win some epic slugfests, and that doesn't bode well for their season.

I also have to wonder if they are feeling the pressure of practically having the World Series trophy presented to them before the season started based upon the potential of their line-up. Big expectations means big pressure.

fquaye149
04-07-2008, 09:13 AM
I believe, the broadcasters brought up last night, only two teams went 0-5 and made the playoffs, so once again, 0-3 is different than 0-6.

What do past seasons have to do with the present?

No team had ever been down 3 games to none in postseason play and won the series circa 2004.

All that matters in baseball is winning more games than the other teams in your division. I'm really not sure how starting 0-6 precludes that? Hell it wouldn't even preclude it in football.

soxfan13
04-07-2008, 09:29 AM
The Tigers will hit eventually, they're too stacked not to. The problem is with their pitching staff. Beyond Verlander (who had a bad outing last night), I think each one of their starters has potential for shakiness. The Tigers are very unlikely to get much help from their bullpen, either. The Tigers are going to have to win some epic slugfests, and that doesn't bode well for their season.

I also have to wonder if they are feeling the pressure of practically having the World Series trophy presented to them before the season started based upon the potential of their line-up. Big expectations means big pressure.

I would usually agree with you BUT those are the same words used to describe the White Sox last year.

hi im skot
04-07-2008, 09:44 AM
I would usually agree with you BUT those are the same words used to describe the White Sox last year.

True, but seriously, compare Detroit's line-up this year to the Sox lineup of 2007.

Granderson is down, and Cabrera doesn't appear to be at full-strength. I think the Tigers will be fine in the long run, but they certainly aren't doing themselves any favors early on.

CashMan
04-07-2008, 09:48 AM
What do past seasons have to do with the present?




That, it is a fact. If, Michael Jordan had 10 seasons in a row that he was MVP, what would you conclude about season number 11? Maybe, that he might be MVP?

hi im skot
04-07-2008, 09:54 AM
That, it is a fact. If, Michael Jordan had 10 seasons in a row that he was MVP, what would you conclude about season number 11? Maybe, that he might be MVP?

Nah, I'd give Barkley the nod.

:dtroll:

Hokiesox
04-07-2008, 09:54 AM
The 2005 Astros started 15-30.

soxfan13
04-07-2008, 09:58 AM
True, but seriously, compare Detroit's line-up this year to the Sox lineup of 2007.

Granderson is down, and Cabrera doesn't appear to be at full-strength. I think the Tigers will be fine in the long run, but they certainly aren't doing themselves any favors early on.

Again I agree but you cant control the injuries or a team wide slump like the Sox endured last year. I am not saying that the Sox had a better line up. Just the fact that pretty much until September, the experts and fans kept saying the Sox cant continue to not hit. Well you know what happened?:tongue:

hi im skot
04-07-2008, 10:01 AM
Again I agree but you cant control the injuries or a team wide slump like the Sox endured last year. I am not saying that the Sox had a better line up. Just the fact that pretty much until September, the experts and fans kept saying the Sox cant continue to not hit. Well you know what happened?:tongue:

Word. And obviously Detroit's pitching is suspect. I hope we continue to play them tough and take the season series. If the Sox continue to play sound baseball, everything will take care of itself.

:cool:

Jurr
04-07-2008, 10:04 AM
It's always dangerous when you count on veterans to produce big for you.
It can definitely catch up to the Sox later on in the year as well, but I surely hope not.

The Tigers miss Granderson, a healthy Sheffield, Zumaya, and Rodney. Injuries are part of the game, and they look lost right now. Oh, well. Keep digging that hole, Detroit!

balke
04-07-2008, 10:53 AM
Great team with no bullpen and bad injuries? Sounds a lot like the Sox. I think they are a bit different, but there are some big similarities. I think the Tigers will find a way to buy themselves out of this predicament. I see Sheffield going somewhere for some relief help.

Thome25
04-07-2008, 11:06 AM
I'd say the 2008 Tigers match more of the 2007 White Sox so far because expectations came in high, and they're really struggling. We all saw last year how a bad month can snowball into a bad year. That stretch from about mid-May to July where it seemed like the bullpen was blowing the game every night really put the team in the ****ter.

IMHO I think the 2008 Tigers will end up comparing more favorably with the 2006 White Sox than the 2007 White Sox.

My reasoning is: Extremely high expectations, Lack of a bullpen, Great Lineup w/plenty of offense, and Shaky starting pitchers who are constantly up and down.

Also, I think the 2008 Tigers will win plenty of games just like the 2006 White Sox but, miss the playoffs.

The 2008 Tigers are VERY similar to the 2006 White Sox.

goon
04-07-2008, 11:46 AM
The 2005 Astros started 15-30.

They didn't play in the 2008 AL Central, just a little more talent in this division.

The Tigers will win games, but for now, let us bask in the glory of first place, right next to... the Kansas City Royals?! What the ****?

guillen4life13
04-07-2008, 11:57 AM
They didn't play in the 2008 AL Central, just a little more talent in this division.

The Tigers will win games, but for now, let us bask in the glory of first place, right next to... the Kansas City Royals?! What the ****?

Which is another reason why we can't say that the Sox current successes are a definite harbinger of things to come. The Royals aren't going to be in first place for long. The Sox have a better chance but it will all come down to pitching.

This division is gonna be a doozy!

kaufsox
04-07-2008, 01:39 PM
Which is another reason why we can't say that the Sox current successes are a definite harbinger of things to come. The Royals aren't going to be in first place for long. The Sox have a better chance but it will all come down to pitching.

This division is gonna be a doozy!

I agree with you, but I think KC is going to be a tougher out this year than in years past. It's stacking up to be quite the division race!

Billy Ashley
04-07-2008, 01:50 PM
Talk about reactionary. First of all, the 2007 white sox were a bad offensive team on paper. They were relying on guys like Anderson, Podsednick , Jerry Owens and Juan Uribe to have loads of meaningful at bats. They were also counting on Josh Fields to start at 3b, something thatís not easy. Rookies have loads of issues every year. The problem with the 2007 white sox was that their pitching staff, which btw looked very solid on paper went into the crapper. The top three were excellent and exceeded expectations but the rest of the entire staff other than the closer were barely replacement level. Think about it this way. The top three combined for over 600 IP for an ERA+ somewhere around 120. The rest of the team dragged that number down to 99Ö thatís horrific. The white sox have not been an elite offensive team in ages. They werenít in 05, 06 or 07. They have though, had stretches of excellent pitching, most notably of course in 05.

I will say that the Tigers are not the best offense in baseball. The mediots who claim that itís a slam dunk are forgetting that while Cabrera is a massive upgrade at third, they will likely see major regression from both Polanco and Mags. Additionally, they were very lucky in terms of injuries last season with only Garry Shefield missing significant time. A lot of things have to break right for them to outscore what they did last season.

TDog
04-07-2008, 01:53 PM
Which is another reason why we can't say that the Sox current successes are a definite harbinger of things to come. The Royals aren't going to be in first place for long. The Sox have a better chance but it will all come down to pitching.

This division is gonna be a doozy!

In 1984, I remember seeing a sports anchor on a local news show in Arizona commenting saying in May that the Cubs had seen first place for the last time that season. I'm no Cubs fan, but I found it a disturbing comment considering that the Cubs had recaptured first about an hour prior to his comment. I don't expect the Royals to contend this year. I expected them to tail off after getting off to a great start in 2003, and they did. But I'm not going to simply write off the Royals because they're the Royals.

The Royals were clearly better than the Tigers last week, and the White Sox were clearly better than the Tigers this weekend just as everyone was better than the defending division champ Sox at the beginning of the dreadful 2001 season when many expected the previously lowly Twins to fade. That doesn't mean the Royals, White Sox and Tigers are going to be the surprises in the 2008 season, but I am keeping an open mind while pulling for the Tigers to finish with a losing record.

Fenway
04-07-2008, 01:55 PM
Can we say Motor City Panic?

from Detroit Free Press

DREW SHARP
Whole team to blame for Tigers' atrocious start (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080407/COL08/804070379/1048/SPORTS)

Billy Ashley
04-07-2008, 01:57 PM
In 1984, I remember seeing a sports anchor on a local news show in Arizona commenting saying in May that the Cubs had seen first place for the last time that season. I'm no Cubs fan, but I found it a disturbing comment considering that the Cubs had recaptured first about an hour prior to his comment. I don't expect the Royals to contend this year. I expected them to tail off after getting off to a great start in 2003, and they did. But I'm not going to simply write off the Royals because they're the Royals.

The Royals were clearly better than the Tigers last week, and the White Sox were clearly better than the Tigers this weekend just as everyone was better than the defending division champ Sox at the beginning of the dreadful 2001 season when many expected the previously lowly Twins to fade. That doesn't mean the Royals, White Sox and Tigers are going to be the surprises in the 2008 season, but I am keeping an open mind while pulling for the Tigers to finish with a losing record.

That's the healthy way to look at it.

In terms of talent the AL central likely looks like this:

Indians
Tigers
White Sox
Royals
Twins

That doesn't mean that the final standings will reflect that. People get hurt, players have break out seasons other players fade. We can a lot to project the future but even the smartest of us are likely going to be right a little bit better than half the time.

TDog
04-07-2008, 02:13 PM
That's the healthy way to look at it.

In terms of talent the AL central likely looks like this:

Indians
Tigers
White Sox
Royals
Twins

That doesn't mean that the final standings will reflect that. People get hurt, players have break out seasons other players fade. We can a lot to project the future but even the smartest of us are likely going to be right a little bit better than half the time.

A Tribune columnist 32 years ago after Indiana beat Marquette on the way to an undefeated NCAA championship wrote, "The better team won. The better team always wins. Saturdy (maybe it was Sunday) the better talent lost."

In baseball, in this decade (century and millennium for that matter), people overrate the talent of baseball teams. Young emerging hungry players often help teams more than stars who have achieved their payday. It isn't about you career stats. And, frankly, in February and March I didn't think the Tigers were that talented.

Billy Ashley
04-07-2008, 02:16 PM
I'd like to see some proof of that. The Yankees and Red Sox seem to do ok with older players year in and year out.

A team certainly can not rely on only Vets but players with strong baselines in the primes of their careers (28-32) seem to be helpful.

TDog
04-07-2008, 02:51 PM
I'd like to see some proof of that. The Yankees and Red Sox seem to do ok with older players year in and year out.

A team certainly can not rely on only Vets but players with strong baselines in the primes of their careers (28-32) seem to be helpful.

Did the 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins or 2005 White Sox have what were regarded as the most talented teams on paper? The Yankees haven't won a championship in the 21st century.

I don't believe the Sox should get rid of Jermaine Dye or Jim Thome because they're old and didn't help the Sox win last year. And I certainly would rather regularly see Crede and Uribe at third and second over Fields and Ramirez who are younger and possibly the future. But winning baseball isn't generated by offensive stats, although offensive stats can come from winning baseball.

fquaye149
04-07-2008, 03:22 PM
I'd like to see some proof of that. The Yankees and Red Sox seem to do ok with older players year in and year out.

A team certainly can not rely on only Vets but players with strong baselines in the primes of their careers (28-32) seem to be helpful.

The Yankees and Red Sox also have the luxury of having the best older players...

Billy Ashley
04-07-2008, 05:25 PM
Did the 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins or 2005 White Sox have what were regarded as the most talented teams on paper? The Yankees haven't won a championship in the 21st century.

I don't believe the Sox should get rid of Jermaine Dye or Jim Thome because they're old and didn't help the Sox win last year. And I certainly would rather regularly see Crede and Uribe at third and second over Fields and Ramirez who are younger and possibly the future. But winning baseball isn't generated by offensive stats, although offensive stats can come from winning baseball.

2007 Boston: 30.1
2006 Cardinals: 29.6
2005 White Sox: 29.2
2004 Boston: 30.5
2003 Marlins: 27.7
2002 Angels: 28.3
2001 Dbacks: 31.9
2000 Yanks: 31.3
1999 Yanks: 30.8

This past decade shows a trend opposite of what your arguing. How many young hungry players come up and fail? The answer: oodles.

Going deeper:

98 Yanks: 30.4
97 Marlins: 28.6
96 Yankiees: 30
95 Braves: 27.9
94-----------
93 Jays: 29.3
92 Jays: 29.3
91: Twins: 29.1
90 Reds: 27.5
89 A's: 29.3 and a wholla lotta roids
88 Dodgers: 29.9
87 Twins: 27.8 (and a negative run diff that season, what's up with that?)
86 Mets: 28
85 Royals: 30.7


I'm not saying youth is not important. In fact good long lasting teams mix mix vets with kids. But I hope this dismisses the entire notion that the Marlins won in 03 because they were young and hungry. I also made no claim about slugging a team to victory. In fact, I believe pitching and defense to be just as important to baseball. FYI, the Tigers have a decent starting 5, their pen is awful but their rotation is capable of being average.

TDog
04-07-2008, 06:27 PM
It isn't about age and it isn't about stats. Some emerging players are older than others. Joe Crede emerged in 2005, and he had been younger and hungrier in previous disappointing seasons. Jose Contreras emerged as a solid pitcher late in 2005, and he was hardly young. (Contreras and Hernandez even skewed the average age of the Sox a bit.0

That is why you can't just add Tom Seaver to a team that finished in first place by 20 games and be guaranteed a winning team, even if Seaver indeed turns out to be your best pitcher. You can't just add Greg Maddux to a team that came within five outs of the World Series and be guaranteed to make the diluted postseason. Looking at stats, hitting or pitching, don't tell you who is going to have a good team. Sometimes looking at stats after the season don't tell you who won.

Until -- or unless -- the Tigers show me they aren't a bad baseball team by playing something other than bad baseball, I won't concede they should finish ahead of Kansas City.

turners56
04-07-2008, 06:28 PM
Detroit will get it back together sooner or later, Leyland won't let a bad start demoralize a team with that much talent.

Tragg
04-07-2008, 06:41 PM
Last night, it occurred to me that Detroit so far is a lot like we were last year. The Tigers have a powerful lineup like we did in '07, but their hitters aren't hitting. And, like us last year, their pitching has not been all that good. Anyone else notice the similarities?
Weren't the 07 Tigers like the 06 Sox in many ways? Don't foget - Detroit didn't make the playoffs last year.
This year, the Tigers may have similar pitching to 07 Sox; but they don't have the clown hitters in the lineup that we had last year.
I think the Sox usually reveal themselves early in the season. I don't know about Detroit.
The Sox will be good this year if at least 2 of Contreras/Danks/Floyd hold up. If all 3 do, we contend.

Billy Ashley
04-07-2008, 06:48 PM
It isn't about age and it isn't about stats. Some emerging players are older than others. Joe Crede emerged in 2005, and he had been younger and hungrier in previous disappointing seasons. Jose Contreras emerged as a solid pitcher late in 2005, and he was hardly young. (Contreras and Hernandez even skewed the average age of the Sox a bit.0

That is why you can't just add Tom Seaver to a team that finished in first place by 20 games and be guaranteed a winning team, even if Seaver indeed turns out to be your best pitcher. You can't just add Greg Maddux to a team that came within five outs of the World Series and be guaranteed to make the diluted postseason. Looking at stats, hitting or pitching, don't tell you who is going to have a good team. Sometimes looking at stats after the season don't tell you who won.

Until -- or unless -- the Tigers show me they aren't a bad baseball team by playing something other than bad baseball, I won't concede they should finish ahead of Kansas City.


Of course one player wonít make that huge of a difference. One player can only represent so many more wins for a team.

Youíre point was that veterans donít make teams win but rather young hungry players like the 05 white sox and 03 Marlins. I pointed out that those teams were actually about the same age as every other WS winning team the past 15 years. Now youíre pointing out outliersÖ well yeah, all teams have outliers. Thatís actually my point entirely.

Winning ball clubs likely represent the rest of the league in terms of age. Theyíre likely not that far from the average age of professional baseball players. Theyíre very likely in fact to be with in two standard deviations from the mean; meaning, completely normal and unspectacular in their age.

You point out Credeís emergence last season. I agree teams need lucky breaks in order to be successful. Crede posting an OPS+ of 107 was a lucky break. As was the pitching of Neal Cotts and Cliff Polite.

To be successful over the 162 day grind takes talent, hard work and good fortune. To win in the play offs takes health and luck. I just donít see how one could look at the wealth of data available and claim this team won or that team lost due to not being hungry. How about variation on BABIP? Or journeymen reliever having the season of his life? Or the team won an inordinate amount of one run games?

As for the Tigers, their down spell is likely due to injuries, bad luck and being in a funk. Variation is a part of the game. However, to think the Royals have a better chance to make the play offs than the Tigers is nonsense. Could it happen? Sure. I could also get a date with Jennifer Connelly as well. I wouldnít bet on either though.

soxinem1
04-08-2008, 07:11 AM
Of course one player won’t make that huge of a difference. One player can only represent so many more wins for a team.

You’re point was that veterans don’t make teams win but rather young hungry players like the 05 white sox and 03 Marlins. I pointed out that those teams were actually about the same age as every other WS winning team the past 15 years. Now you’re pointing out outliers… well yeah, all teams have outliers. That’s actually my point entirely.

Winning ball clubs likely represent the rest of the league in terms of age. They’re likely not that far from the average age of professional baseball players. They’re very likely in fact to be with in two standard deviations from the mean; meaning, completely normal and unspectacular in their age.

You point out Crede’s emergence last season. I agree teams need lucky breaks in order to be successful. Crede posting an OPS+ of 107 was a lucky break. As was the pitching of Neal Cotts and Cliff Polite.

To be successful over the 162 day grind takes talent, hard work and good fortune. To win in the play offs takes health and luck. I just don’t see how one could look at the wealth of data available and claim this team won or that team lost due to not being hungry. How about variation on BABIP? Or journeymen reliever having the season of his life? Or the team won an inordinate amount of one run games?

As for the Tigers, their down spell is likely due to injuries, bad luck and being in a funk. Variation is a part of the game. However, to think the Royals have a better chance to make the play offs than the Tigers is nonsense. Could it happen? Sure. I could also get a date with Jennifer Connelly as well. I wouldn’t bet on either though.

I agree with your statement for the most part, but I also think there is a case of swollen-heads in DET too.

Opening Day, they had seven hits and a 3-0 lead by the 4th Inning. I watched this game and you could see the attitude of this team. But once the lead melted away, they were already in panic mode. They moped around like they just lost the World Series.

Sure, you could blame some or a lot of this on injuries, but:

Polanco is not hitting.
Renteria could lead-off until Granderson returns, not Ivan Rodriguez.
They had a thin rotation going into the season and knew it.
The bullpen was for **** going into the season and they knew it.
Jacque Jones and Marcus Thames look like crap, esp. Jones in LF defensively.
You are a week into the season and Brandon Inge has been your most productive hitter. All from a guy they tried desperately to ditch for the last three months.

Now, even when Granderson, Cabrera, Zumaya (if), Rodney (if), and Sheffield all heal, this does nothing to fix the pitching staff, unless one of the hitters gets traded.

Since DET is now second in payroll, do they have enough wiggle room to add arms, or better yet, will these arms even be out there for them to get?

So even if all these guys come back and they hit a ton, as we saw in the first half of 2006 ourselves, you can only out-slug you opponents for so long before reality kicks in. Even all those names DET has will not be able to sustain scoring 7,8,or 9 runs a night and keep having nail-biters.

Oblong
04-08-2008, 07:42 AM
This might sound crazy but to me the biggest problem has been the defense.

Yes, the defense.

I can't look it up right now but I bet over half the runs allowed have come with 2 outs. I've seen too many ground balls get through the infield that I thought should have been turned into outs.

In the Sunday night game alone, Guillen dropped that ball at first base, there was a ground ball between 3B and SS, with the bases loaded. Crede or Inge turn that into a DP. Cabrera and Renteria have no range and Guillen, despite what Joe Morgan says, still has a lot of work to do at 1B. Bad infield defense makes the pitchers look a lot worse than they are and with a rotation that has 3 question marks already it's not good.

Crede and Cabrera and Uribe had some nice plays in the field, the kind that you expect good defenders to make.

I would not be shocked if by August we see Cabrera in LF and Inge back at third.

I thought Kenny Williams could have gotten more for Jon Garland but watching Orlando Cabrera play for 3 games changed my mind. A good defensive SS is worth a lot of runs and if Crede's healthy then it's like a new team.


Hitting comes and goes

MISoxfan
04-08-2008, 08:02 AM
Talk about reactionary. First of all, the 2007 white sox were a bad offensive team on paper. They were relying on guys like Anderson, Podsednick , Jerry Owens and Juan Uribe to have loads of meaningful at bats. They were also counting on Josh Fields to start at 3b, something thatís not easy. Rookies have loads of issues every year. The problem with the 2007 white sox was that their pitching staff, which btw looked very solid on paper went into the crapper. The top three were excellent and exceeded expectations but the rest of the entire staff other than the closer were barely replacement level. Think about it this way. The top three combined for over 600 IP for an ERA+ somewhere around 120. The rest of the team dragged that number down to 99Ö thatís horrific. The white sox have not been an elite offensive team in ages. They werenít in 05, 06 or 07. They have though, had stretches of excellent pitching, most notably of course in 05.

I will say that the Tigers are not the best offense in baseball. The mediots who claim that itís a slam dunk are forgetting that while Cabrera is a massive upgrade at third, they will likely see major regression from both Polanco and Mags. Additionally, they were very lucky in terms of injuries last season with only Garry Shefield missing significant time. A lot of things have to break right for them to outscore what they did last season.

Talk about revisionist. The 2007 White Sox did not start the season relying on tons of meaningful at-bats from Pods, Owens, Anderson, and Uribe. Uribe, Pods, and Erstad maybe. They also weren't relying on Josh Fields to be a starter.

Pods
Iguchi
Thome
Konerko
Dye
Crede
Pierzynski
Uribe
Erstad

It looked very strong on paper when you consider the years 2-7 had at the plate in '06. Add in a healthy Pods and it looked even stronger. Of course not even one person 2-7 matched '06.

The question marks at the start of '07 were all pitching. Could Buehrle and Contreras turn it around? Can Javy and Jon continue the good starts they had to finish the season? John Danks?

The 2006 White Sox had the 4th highest average (.280), 6th best OBP (.342), and were 1st in SLG (.464). 3rd in runs scored, 1st in HRS. Thats pretty elite.

The 2007 Tigers 2nd in BA (.287), 3rd in OBP (.345) 2nd in SLG (.458), 2nd in runs scored, 6th in HRS. They had a lower OPS than the '06 Sox.

That being said I don't think the Tigers will play like we did last season because the odds of the entire team slumping like that are just not that good.

The Immigrant
04-08-2008, 08:14 AM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y274/purplewindex/DSC014533.jpg

Damn, it's nice to have a real bullpen again.

Billy Ashley
04-08-2008, 12:04 PM
Talk about revisionist. The 2007 White Sox did not start the season relying on tons of meaningful at-bats from Pods, Owens, Anderson, and Uribe. Uribe, Pods, and Erstad maybe. They also weren't relying on Josh Fields to be a starter.

Pods
Iguchi
Thome
Konerko
Dye
Crede
Pierzynski
Uribe
Erstad

It looked very strong on paper when you consider the years 2-7 had at the plate in '06. Add in a healthy Pods and it looked even stronger. Of course not even one person 2-7 matched '06.

The question marks at the start of '07 were all pitching. Could Buehrle and Contreras turn it around? Can Javy and Jon continue the good starts they had to finish the season? John Danks?

The 2006 White Sox had the 4th highest average (.280), 6th best OBP (.342), and were 1st in SLG (.464). 3rd in runs scored, 1st in HRS. Thats pretty elite.

The 2007 Tigers 2nd in BA (.287), 3rd in OBP (.345) 2nd in SLG (.458), 2nd in runs scored, 6th in HRS. They had a lower OPS than the '06 Sox.

That being said I don't think the Tigers will play like we did last season because the odds of the entire team slumping like that are just not that good.


2007 Team OPS+ 87
2006 Team OPS+ 103
2005 Team OPS+95

The white sox offense always looks better than it actually is according to Home Runs, Runs scored and so on because they play in a little league ball park. Conversely, their pitching is always a lot better than it looks for the same reason.

The 2006 line up with their three year splits in OPS+ going into the season, outliers in bold:

Pods: 75, 86, 75,Podsednik is just not a good hitter. He was below average every year of his career with the exception of 03. Before you claim that the steals matter, take into account that his career SB% is 76% which is ok, but not fantastic.

Iguchi: 97, 104
Iguchi looked like a solid hitter his rookie season. He posted very good numbers for a second basement. He was however far from elite and far from a sure thing. Although I do suspect heís more like the hitter he was in 05 than 07.

Thome: 155, 94, 144
Thome has always been a fantastic hitter. However the year before coming to the Sox, he was plagued by injuries. The White Sox took a gamble on him (a rather smart one at that giving up only an overrated CF and a Single A pitcher to do so). He was of course given his age and injury history still a bit of a concern.

Konerko:134, 136, 127,
Konerko was a very good. Certainly falls well short of elite though.

Dye: 151, 118, 105
Which one of these does not look like the other. Dye clearly over performed and had about a 0% chance of ever hitting at his 2006 level again. He bested his career OPS+ by 40 freaking percent, thatís insane. Dye is a good outfielder, heís not an MVP. One fluke season at 32 doesnít mean you can expect him to repeat that performance. Should Detroit expect Polanco to be a superstar this year?

Crede: 107, 96, 83
Crede had a career year in 2006 and it wasnít even that great of an offensive year. Heís not a good hitter, his career statistics provides ample evidence to demonstrate this.

Uribe: 85, 111, 76
Was a scrub on offense.

Erstad: 57, 87, 97
One of the worst offensive players in baseball. Also had an awful injury history.

This team had 3 automatic outs in the lineup and was counting on Crede and Dye to continue greatly overachieving their career norms. Did they underperform? Yes, but at the same time plenty of people saw it coming.

Detroit btw had a team with an OPS+ of 110 and while it did see career years out of Polanco and Ordonez, they upgraded Brandon Inge to Miguel Cabrera and Guillen now is their first basemen instead of the mediocre Sean Casey. Detroit should have no problem matching their offensive output from last season, which was significantly better than the 2006 White Sox.

Oblong
04-08-2008, 01:12 PM
Casey was essentially replaced by Renteria.

MISoxfan
04-09-2008, 04:18 AM
I'm not sure what your argument is exactly? :scratch:

That the Sox were significantly worse at the plate in 2007 than they were in 06 and even 05? (04, 03)? Or that you think it was predictable going into the season?

You can sure throw a lot of strawmans and veiled insults in there though.