To What Degree Do the White Sox Need a COMPLETE Overhaul?

[Lip Man 1]

Johnny:

That's not bad to be sure.

Now can you expand the stats to show the number of postseason appearances since 1981? Not trying to belittle you or the numbers just that while the Sox look good in total wins over 32 years, I suspect they are pretty far down the pack with getting to the playoffs.

The Sox always seem to be short a player or weak in an area and the opposition always seems to find it and kill the Sox over it.

Lip

[MUsoxfan]

Originally Posted by gosox41

For marketing, it's easy to market a WS champ. The premium pricing turned out to be a flop. On the flipside, can anyone market this team enough so it will increase attendance? Maybe the question is: What is keeping Sox fans away form the ballpark?

In terms of broadcasting, I'd love to see Hawk go, but my guess is Stone will leave. I like Ed and DJ. Not great. But they have some good insight and entertain me a lot more than Hawk does.


Bob

Yes, and I'll tell you why. John McCub, for all the backlash he's received made the Cubs and then the Hawks really hot tickets. Both those teams only showed a little promise in terms of winning when he took them over and he sells out everything.

Brooks has winning in his hands and fails miserably. The White Sox marketing team is nothing short of awful and out of touch

[Johnny Mostil]

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

Johnny:

That's not bad to be sure.

Now can you expand the stats to show the number of postseason appearances since 1981? Not trying to belittle you or the numbers just that while the Sox look good in total wins over 32 years, I suspect they are pretty far down the pack with getting to the playoffs.

The Sox always seem to be short a player or weak in an area and the opposition always seems to find it and kill the Sox over it.

Lip

I suppose I could expand the stats as you request, but I don't know when you'd quit changing your metric. I assume it would be when everybody agrees with you that the past three decades have been nothing but mediocrity?

That said, I might agree with those who say some type of "spark" is missing from the team, though I don't know enough to know what it would be. At the risk of knocking this thread off-kilter, I note fans have been voting with their feet. The Sox have lost attendance every year since 2006. Is there any other team in the majors that has done that? The Sox haven't lost attendance for six consecutive seasons since 1965-1970.

[Lip Man 1]

Johnny:

I said the numbers look good overall. I don't know what more you want out of me?

Don't worry about it. I've got some time I'll look it up this morning.

I'm not the one by the way who said it was "mediocre" you are thinking of someone else (Pale?)

I'm saying (and did in my post) that I was shocked when I did the math, I thought it would be better based on 19 winning seasons...that said you can't dispute that the number of wins averages out to just a tick close to 82 a season. 82 wins a season doesn't often get you to the post season which is what really counts. (or at least counts for a lot.)

Lip

[Johnny Mostil]

Originally Posted by Lip Man 1

Johnny:

I said the numbers look good overall. I don't know what more you want out of me?

Don't worry about it. I've got some time I'll look it up this morning.

I'm not the one by the way who said it was "mediocre" you are thinking of someone else (Pale?)

I'm saying (and did in my post) that I was shocked when I did the math, I thought it would be better based on 19 winning seasons...that said you can't dispute that the number of wins averages out to just a tick close to 82 a season. 82 wins a season doesn't often get you to the post season which is what really counts. (or at least counts for a lot.)

Lip

I think the more relevant question is what more do you want out of the Sox?

Yes, while "82 wins a season doesn't often get you to the post season" (and is that what really counts, or is it, as you've said elsewhere, a winning record?), the fact remains that is more wins per season than all but three teams in the AL have had during the time of current Sox ownership.

To be clear, I think everybody would agree that "something" is missing from the team. Exactly what, I don't know.

But when I see what is undoubtedly a current problem blown up to a 32-year one, as I inferred you were doing with your 32-year records, then, yes, my teeth get set on edge.

[Lip Man 1]

I was curious what the numbers show under current ownership that's all. My personal bottom line (as you well know) are "winning seasons" -- when EVERYTHING else is lost, because of the historical mediocrity of the franchise -- that is my fall back position.

But I can understand that many fans want more, which is why I asked about the playoff situation compared to the other AL teams under current Sox ownership.

Nothing more..nothing less.

And to wit, to answer that question...here you go 81 through 2012:

32 appearances is the maximum number:

Yankees-18
Red Sox-12
Athletics-11
Angels-8
Twins-8
Indians-7
Blue Jays-5
Rangers-5
Tigers-5
White Sox-5
Mariners-4
Orioles-4
Rays-4 (were not in the league entire time frame...)
Royals-3
Brewers-2 (left A.L.)
Astros-0 (join A.L. in 2013)

Sox are tied with three other teams for 7th in the league in that time frame.

So the numbers show just a tick over 81 wins a season in 32 years (81-81 is a .500 record in a full season) and tied for 7th in playoff spots (in a 14 team league for that time period).

I guess maybe "mediocre" is the best way to describe the franchise? (I can't get to the 'confused' face icon or I'd use it here)

Lip

[Chez]

Lip:

Interesting analysis. I view the number of playoff appearances as a better indicator of franchise succcess thatn average number of wins perseason. What's even more sobering than the numbers you use is that you used 1981 as the start date. If you use 1969 as the start date (1969 was the first year of divisional play), the Sox playoff number is the same -- since we didn't have a single playoff appearance from 1969 until 1983.