Soxsi75

I hate to say this.....because it has been exciting......but this year truthfully doesn't really matter. This is one big preseason. 60 games, ridiculously uneven schedule, 7 inning doubleheaders, starting with a man on second in extra innings.... I hope they win as much as possible this year......but no matter what happens there will be a TRIPLE asterisk next to this season. I'm looking for the White Sox to be a powerhouse NEXT year. And if Clevinger then is only here two years?......I agree with you, I'm not sure how I'd feel about it either. I can see good and bad.

You think that's long enough? I don't want him walking after only that short a time and then Kopech haunt us for years in our division. If this happens, they better make Clevinger haunt Cleveland for years in the division.

How long would we be in control of Clevinger's contract?

So then you think I am underrating Cleveland?

I'm not arguing that. But the gap in our lineup to theirs, is greater than the gap between their pitching is to ours. Therefore, I do believe we are more balanced and therefore would win more games over the course of 162 games. And I'm saying this because they are only one game ahead of us while getting unrealistically good pitching. Something that there isn't any reason to believe they would be able to continue to accomplish over 162 games.

True. But even if their lineup performs like you mentioned, and I agree with, they're winning as much as they are because of the ridiculously insane pitching they are getting. So my thinking is that even when their lineup begins to perform like it should, they still won't be winning as much as they are when their pitching comes back down to earth. And therefore, they'd win less games than us. Over the course of 162 games. But in 60 games will that happen?

This is where having only a 60 game season may appear to hurt the White Sox. Because as of now, Cleveland is getting the kind of pitching which isn't simply outstanding, it's legendary. As in one of the best pitching staffs of all time. And so over the course of the long season, which baseball always has been, and needs to be, they would certainly come down to earth a bit. Now, do they have excellent pitching? I would certainly say yes. But is it THIS good? Not a chance. Here's why and what I found. Cleveland's team ERA right now is a ridiculous 2.75. I've researched every season since 1973, the year the Designated Hitter was put into place, and only two teams in the AL have had a season where their team ERA was under 3.00 and none since 1981!!! The two teams were the 1974 Oakland A's at 2.95 and the 1981 Yankees at 2.90. Now the A's in 74 were a team that that year was in the midst of winning their 3rd consecutive World Series. I don't think this Cleveland team has ANY right to have their pitching staff compared to that one, and it's still nearly a quarter of a run lower!!! The other was the 1981 Yankees at 2.90. Which in other words was...........a strike shortened year. Shortened like this one. And still quite a bit higher than Cleveland's this year. I even took it a step further and researched all National Leagues seasons since 1973, which of course had never used the DH, and they've only had a handful of seasons with a team having an ERA below 3.00, even with the pitcher batting, and only only one since 1989!!!! The Cardinals of 2015 managed to have one as low as 2.94. But again. Still almost a quarter of a run higher than what Cleveland's done so far. Also means that none of those outstanding pitching staff's the Braves had in the 90's accomplished this. There were a handful of other one's in the NL from the 1980's, but that was more of a pitching era, and all of them were again in the 2.90's. Except one. The 1981 Astros. They were 2.66. But again, this was 1981. That shortened year. So the point of my large rant here is that if we were to play a full season, I think I've proven here that there would be NO WAY Cleveland could continue to get THIS kind of pitching. And when you also then consider the fact that their lineup doesn't even BEGIN to compare to ours, when their pitching would come back to earth, we would win more games than them. But.........it's just a 60 game season.

OK, fair enough. THAT YEAR ONLY I think it was the deepest, but over the course of their careers of everyone you mentioned, you're right about NY and Seattle.

Sometimes it takes pitchers longer to develop. Sirotka and Parque were only in their 3rd full seasons in 2000, so actually they were still young and early in their careers. Sirotka, because as I said, threw inside, changed speeds and threw strikes, I do think he found it that year. Baldwin.....he had been around a while longer so your argument best fits him, I'll admit. Best way I can describe him as very hot and cold. Almost even to the point of being a head case. He could be lights out for half a season and absolutely brutal the other half. And by the way, for the record, the league average ERA in 2000 was 4.91 not 4.77. I'm not saying this was a "lights out" staff. But they were serviceable enough if healthy. And what about their bullpen? With Foulke, Howry, Simas and Wunsch they had the DEEPEST bullpen in the AL that year.

Well, two things. One I misunderstood you. You wrote "Their pitching staff was weak and we just got lucky they all had career years." Because you said "and" after you said the pitching staff was weak, made me believe you meant you had finished your thoughts about the pitchers and had moved on to other thoughts, and therefore when you said "careers years" I thought you were referring to our hitters. And saying they all had career years IS completely incorrect. So if that's not what you meant, then my bad if I interpreted it wrong. And second, those pitchers ALL got hurt. So yeah, I guess you could say they had "career years" but they never had a chance to prove themselves any further. Sirotka never pitched again because of his injury. Baldwin and Parque both never recovered from their injuries either and weren't effective again. So we'll never be able to know how good they could have been. Now did any of them have overpowering, lights out stuff? No, I'm not saying that. But they were all serviceable major league starters. And so let's compare them to our competition from that era, that Twin staff. Baldwin and Parque both had just as much stuff as Kyle Lohse or Joe Mays. And Sirotka knew how to pitch. He pitched inside, changed speeds and threw strikes. So if he hadn't gotten hurt, he most certainly could have been a left-handed Brad Radtke. And the Twins won multiple division titles with guys like that in their rotation and our offense was FAR superior to there's. It's too easy to look at what happened afterwards to these guys, meaning they were never effective again, and say they weren't that good. They all got hurt.

You are completely incorrect, however everyone is entitled to their opinion.

They all got hurt. So we don't know how they would have turned out. They were all pitching well that year.....until they all got hurt, and so because of that, by 2003 they were all gone. So now 20 years later, it's too easy to say they weren't any good because they were all gone in a couple of years. They were pitching well. The problem and the failure of that team was that their pitching ALL got hurt. Not that it was bad.

You have a link to or know the name of the article? I'd love to read it.

Their numbers were very, very close. I think it has more to do with the fact that Giambi was a "roid" boy. That's more the injustice then the numbers themselves. I actually understood it more at the time, but then after hearing about Giambi and his roids, I became angrier. And his roid use shouldn't have been a surprise. One look at the guy with the big, puffy look, he couldn't deny he was using. I guess what I was upset with back then was, if I remember correctly, was that Giambi won because Thomas was a DH and Giambi played the field. That I thought was a joke. Giambi didn't do anything defensively to make him an MVP.

That's exactly right!!!

"Coming back to earth" wasn't this staff's problem. They got hurt. So if you are looking at some advanced statistic like FIP, it's going to be misleading. Plus, this statistic can be incredibly misleading. In 2005 the White Sox had only the 5th best FIP in the AL. You going to tell me they only had the 5th best pitching in the AL that year? On the flip side, in 1971 the White Sox had the BEST FIP in the AL! That famed Baltimore Oriole staff, considered by many among the best, and maybe the very best, staff in baseball history was only 4th in FIP! The 1971 White Sox pitching staff. Not sure they're looked at as a great staff.

I think you sum it up perfectly and I completely agree!! With EVERYTHING you said!! I didn't think about initially the point you make about the 2001 team being that unlikeable, but you are spot on!! And I remember thinking so at the time, but as time went on, I had forgotten a bit about it. But you're right. Ironic you mentioned that Valentin was the best....because I remember how much I hated the Clayton trade and Clayton himself. Management got the idea that one major problem with the team was Valentin made too many errors at short. So they trade for Clayton. But what happened instead, was that one trade screwed up 3 positions for the Sox and 3 important players from the 2000 team. Because they decided to make Valentin a utility player, a la Tony Phillips. A guy who will play mostly everyday, but at different places. So that screwed up Valentin. One position they had Valentin play sometimes was third. So that screwed up Herbert Perry's role, a very underrated performer for us in 2000. Or center, to help screw up Singelton. So there's the 3 regulars it influenced. And Wells was damaged goods. At least here. Frustrating thing about him was he pitched well every where else he pitched....except here. And the farm system.....everything you said was true.

EXACTLY!! My point exactly!!

I agree. With everything you said. You're right, most people didn't think they'd make a deep playoff run....because of the horrible shape their pitching staff was in with the injuries. But what if their ENTIRE staff wasn't hurt? Because as I proved in my initial statement, they DID have pitching. What if their staff stayed healthy? Not just this year, but in the next few years? Johann Santana and Brad Radtke didn't have any injury issues for Minnesota. Meanwhile, during this time we were starting guys like Danny Wright and Todd Ritchie because this entire staff went down. And of the young guys we had come up because of this whole staff getting hurt, Buehrle was the only one who really developed long term. We were counting on guys like Jon Rauch, (remember him?)

This to me is a forgotten team in White Sox history. And I'm wondering if everyone else thinks so, and if so, why? They are still the highest scoring team in the 2000's. They finished with the best record in the AL and had the best record pretty much all year from May on. In June, they steamrolled the Indians and Yankees, their main competition for the best team in the AL, in a couple of home and home series that cemented they were the best team in the AL that year. I think many people today remember this team as a team that could hit but didn't have any pitching. Untrue. At the halfway point, they were 2nd in the AL in ERA. Their top 4 starters ERA's read as follows. Sirotka 3.78, Parque 3.86, Baldwin 3.88, and Eldred 3.91. And the league AVG ERA for that season was 5.28. The only reason they were second at this point was Pedro Martinez's incredible performance had Boston atop in ERA. As far as wins go, Baldwin and Eldred had 10 wins. Parque and Sirotka were at 8 each. The teams record was 52-29. That means Baldwin and Eldred each were on pace to win 20 games, and Parque and Sirotka 16. And, of course as I mentioned, they had the best offense baseball has seen since the 21st century began. AND their main hitters, Frank Thomas, Magglio Ordonez, Paul Konerko and Carlos Lee, all of whom had better seasons in their careers then this one. So no one can use the "career year" label here. So what happened? What happened was their pitching staff blew apart with injuries. It began on July 14th when Eldred blew out his elbow and effectively ended his season. Then throughout the course of the season EVERY SINGLE ONE of these 4 guys went down with serious injury. And long term. Bad enough that Sirotka never pitched again and Baldwin and Parque were never the same again. And the bullpen wasn't spared either. Simas and Barcelo never pitched again because of injury and Wunsch and Howry were effected. Yet they still finished 4th in ERA. By the time the playoffs came around their entire staff was in shambles. They lost to Seattle partly because I think their young hitting felt a bit of pressure, but there was no way they could have gotten any further or won in the post season because of the shape their staff was in. Parque started Game 1 and it was said later he wouldn't have been able to start another game afterwards and Baldwin gallantly started Game 3 but he really probably shouldn't have. Am I the only one who remembers this? Why isn't this team more revered? The 1977 South Side Hit Men team is fondly remembered, and rightfully so and by myself mind you, but that team didn't win a title. They finished 12 games out. This team did. Is it because they fell apart in the playoffs and what happened between this year and 2005 when the Twins used their small ball approach to success? Maybe if this teams pitching didn't fall apart to injury so thoroughly, which contributed greatly to their failures between 2000 and 2005, things might have been different. I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

In my opinion it's the owners. 100% their fault. In March both sides agreed on what they would do and with it the players agreed to take a pay cut. Now the owners want them to take a larger one because they may lose more money......And now the players made an excellent suggestion of an 114 game regular season. That would make the season somewhat real. But no. The owners want a 50 game regular season. That would be a pathetic joke. The owners are wrong and at fault. 100%.

OK, fair enough. We all know that. Hence, why it's hypothetical.

But remember, the 94 team never had the CHANCE to.

Excellent point about 2003!! They can most certainly be thrown into this mix!

Agreed. But I'm still optimistic they can get a 3-4 week "spring" training some time in June and start in July. That gives them July, August, September, and carry the regular season into October and start the playoffs around mid October. The playoffs will then run into November. Now, is to cold to play baseball in November? Yeah. But at the same time, is it to cold to play baseball in March which is when they now start the regular season? Again, yeah. So there shouldn't be a reason they can't do it this way.