White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
GO SOX! DSNB!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-02-2005, 04:50 PM
DrCrawdad DrCrawdad is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Valley Of The Malls
Posts: 8,585
Default Another, the Sox won't keep winning article.

Quote:
The New Sox
by Aaron Gleeman
May 02, 2005

During the offseason, the White Sox shed sluggers Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez and brought in speedsters Scott Podsednik and Tadahito Iguchi with the misguided notion that the team needed to focus on playing "small ball" in 2005. The basic idea being that the White Sox had finished in second place for three straight seasons while ranking among the league leaders in home runs, so that must have been the root of the problem. It wasn't, of course, because the fact is that Chicago's offense was never really a problem at all. The White Sox, with their AL-leading 242 homers, ranked third in the league in runs scored last season with 865, producing 11% more offense (85 more runs) than the first place Twins.

The rest of the article in Baseball Times article on the Sox.
Ho, hum.
__________________

DrCrawdad
"In time you can turn these obsessions into careers...Hurry Down Doomsday the bugs are taking over." - Elvis Costello
  #2  
Old 05-02-2005, 04:51 PM
Rocky Soprano Rocky Soprano is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Munster, IN
Posts: 9,399
Default

  #3  
Old 05-02-2005, 04:56 PM
MRKARNO MRKARNO is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown
Posts: 7,678
Default

Aaron Gleeman isnt going to admit the Sox are for real until they've essentially wrapped up the division.
__________________
Post season checklist:
First home playoff win in 46 years Check
First playoff series win in 88 years Check
First Pennant in 46 years CHECK
First World Series in 88 years CHECK
  #4  
Old 05-02-2005, 05:01 PM
mweflen mweflen is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago (38th and Wallace)
Posts: 2,149
Default

Quote:
In short, if the White Sox's "small ball" offense continues to struggle to score runs and the starting pitching comes back down to earth like their established levels of performance suggest they will, Chicago could be in some trouble
.

This statement can't be argued with. It's just pretty effin' obvious. The guy's just filling random column space.

"If the [[Insert Team Name]] 's pitching declines and their offense doesn't pick up, they're in trouble."


WELL, DUH.
__________________
check out my ballpark reviews and pics at
http://itbecomesclear.blogspot.com/
  #5  
Old 05-02-2005, 05:04 PM
Chisox003 Chisox003 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,845
Post

Weve seen this, been over it, how many times in the last 5 months?

My count is 1,304,240 1/2

Anybody else have a different, possibly higher, amount of these articles written by these so called "journalists"

The only difference is this guy has the rocks to say it a month AFTER the season started...and we are 18-7! Ha ha ha...Foolish

Edit: I sent him an email...I like seeing if guys like this will ever email me back, which they never do..Because they're wrong!!

S05X

Last edited by Chisox003; 05-02-2005 at 05:16 PM.
  #6  
Old 05-02-2005, 05:08 PM
SOX ADDICT '73 SOX ADDICT '73 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Orland Hills, IL
Posts: 3,006
Default

I wasn't aware that Jay Moronotti wrote using a pseudonym.

Seriously, what's with all the venom targeting the White Sox lately? It's one thing to be skeptical about our awesome start (heck, most of us are pretty skeptical ourselves), but some of these mediots are writing and saying (BBTN) pretty nasty things! It's like they can't stand the fact that it's the red-headed stepchild of Chicago baseball that's having all the success, instead of Big Blue.

Someone needs to tell this particular idiot that the only reason our pitching staff is better this year is because they unloaded some payroll through the Magg$ fiasco and CLee deal. They were able to pick up El Duque, bolster the bullpen, and sign AJ (who, along with Widge, deserves a lot of the credit for how they've handled the staff).

And those cumulative 2004 numbers he spouts, all the runs and homers? They mean nothing unless you break it down game-by-game. A team like the 2001-2004 White Sox that scores 14 runs in one game, 1 in the next, and gets shut out in the third game is going to average 5 runs per, and most likely go 1-2 in that series. That's a pretty sweet offense, wouldn't you say?
__________________
My man Vincent says:

"Gogh Gogh White Sox!"
  #7  
Old 05-02-2005, 06:25 PM
fquaye149 fquaye149 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: fayetteville, ar
Posts: 10,116
Default

anytime someone says the sox offense was never a problem is someone who only looked at the lines at the end of the year.

there is nothing in the statistics for CORPSEBALL.
  #8  
Old 05-02-2005, 06:55 PM
MisterB MisterB is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hayward, CA
Posts: 2,828
Default

Just a hint for you guys - I took the link to the guy's website, and on the left side of the page he has links to other sites broken down by category:

#1. Oh, The Places I Write
#2. Approved Columnists
and
#3. Minnesota Twins Stuff

That helps explain things
__________________
There were never any 'good old days'
They are today, they are tomorrow
It's a stupid thing we say
Cursing tomorrow with sorrow


Gogol Bordello - "Ultimate"
  #9  
Old 05-02-2005, 07:40 PM
tebman's Avatar
tebman tebman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Bolingbrook
Posts: 3,889
Blog Entries: 12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOX ADDICT '73
I wasn't aware that Jay Moronotti wrote using a pseudonym.

Seriously, what's with all the venom targeting the White Sox lately? It's one thing to be skeptical about our awesome start (heck, most of us are pretty skeptical ourselves), but some of these mediots are writing and saying (BBTN) pretty nasty things! It's like they can't stand the fact that it's the red-headed stepchild of Chicago baseball that's having all the success, instead of Big Blue.
MisterB pointed out that this guy is a Twins apologist, so that helps explain why he writes this kind of stuff. But as far as the overall venom toward the Sox, someone else pointed out that these writers/pundits/analysts/proctologists, or whatever they are, picked the Sox to finish third or fourth, and they don't want to be proved wrong. The Sox are showing them up.

A winning season can cure a lot of this.
__________________
- tebman
  #10  
Old 05-02-2005, 07:54 PM
kevingrt kevingrt is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Buffalo Grove, IL
Posts: 8,752
Default

I don't even need to look at it or read... what's new?
__________________
It's gone.
  #11  
Old 05-05-2005, 07:01 PM
johnny_mostil johnny_mostil is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North Texas
Posts: 785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOX ADDICT '73

And those cumulative 2004 numbers he spouts, all the runs and homers? They mean nothing unless you break it down game-by-game. A team like the 2001-2004 White Sox that scores 14 runs in one game, 1 in the next, and gets shut out in the third game is going to average 5 runs per, and most likely go 1-2 in that series. That's a pretty sweet offense, wouldn't you say?
The problem with that is the 2004 White Sox were a normal team in terms of run scoring consistency. Almost all baseball teams do exactly this.

The 2005 White Sox are 21-7 because their staff ERA is 2.94. You can't lose when the other team doesn't score, and scoring 3 or 4 runs a game just isn't that hard when you know you don't need 8.
  #12  
Old 05-05-2005, 07:04 PM
DSpivack DSpivack is offline
WSI 2017 Preseason Prediction Contest Winner
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Evanston
Posts: 30,024
Default

Should be obvious that they won't keep winning at this % rate.

Unless they finish 121-41.
  #13  
Old 05-05-2005, 07:09 PM
MRKARNO MRKARNO is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Downtown
Posts: 7,678
Default

Aaron Gleeman responds:

Quote:

<li>I'm sure this will come as a huge shock, but a lot of White Sox fans weren't very pleased with my "The New Sox" article at The Hardball Times earlier this week. A couple things: One, it's impossible to write an article saying a team's great start won't hold up without offending that team's fan base. Two, the number of White Sox-related sites that aren't fans of mine is huge, and that's just fine. In fact, I hope the same White Sox fans get angry at me next year, when I suggest that Chicago will finish behind the Twins for a sixth straight season.

My favorite comment from this particular group of angry White Sox fans?
It must be great to be a stathead, you don't even have to watch any games.
If you can find a human being on earth who has watched more innings of baseball over the past few years than I have, I'd like to meet him.

Worry about this year first Aaron...

Other than that, his points of response are reasonable (not necessarily the points in the original article).
  #14  
Old 05-02-2005, 04:59 PM
na_na_na_na na_na_na_na is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 288
Default

It's astounding that stat heads who try to talk about the trade of Lee and non signing of Ordonez always miss the most important number number $.

All the extra cash from not signing Ordonez and making the Lee deal sured up the bullpen and starting rotatation. I'll gladdly give up 3 runs on offense a game if I can keep 4 runs in defense.
Also it's very disengenious to compare our april 04/april 05 offense numbers and then compare our april 05 staff against itself lifetime instead of against the april 04 staff.
  #15  
Old 05-03-2005, 01:37 PM
Hangar18 Hangar18 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Side, Pilsen, CHICAGO
Posts: 11,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by na_na_na_na
It's astounding that stat heads who try to talk about the trade of Lee and non signing of Ordonez always miss the most important number number $.

All the extra cash from not signing Ordonez and making the Lee deal sured up the bullpen and starting rotatation.
What I think is astounding is that Rein$dorf has sox fans believing that if
we hadnt traded LEE and let ORDONEZ go, we wouldnt have had the
All the extra cash to shore up the bullpen and starting rotation. Ive
always countered, our offense wasnt the problem, if our Rotation had been deep enough, and we hadnt cheapened our bullpen after the 2003 season,
we woudlve gone far in the playoffs.

This just happens to be the year, that those 2 players were due Huge Raises, and Uncle Jerry didnt want to pay. He used that $$$$$$$ to Fill Holes in the team ............
Holes the White SOX themselves created !!!!!!!!!! Dont get me wrong,
im very excited, this is what it feels like when you fill your holes and the team
starts playing well. But had the SOX just filled the holes back in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, we'd be talking about the SOX are trying to win the
division for the 6th year in a row .........
__________________
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/v...&postid=343998
" The problem with someone printing Lies all the time, is eventually, people are going to start Believing it, if you don't rebut it " - Hawk Harrelson on what happens when you Ignore The Media
" Ignoring the Issues doesn't make them go away " - Score host Jason Goff
" The 2006 White Sox..... simply didn't have the hunger of the Twins or Tigers" - SunTimes columnist and SOX fan Richard Roeper
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.