Greg Hibbard

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 01:31 PM) That's where the Sox have failed many times is beating teams they are suppose to. Actually, over the last six series against sub .500 team the Sox have gone 16-3. In fact, the only sub .500-opponent series they didn't win in the second half was the Royals 3 game home series where they went 1-2. I'd say the Sox have had a bigger problem beating the top 5 AL teams (NYY, Bos, Angels, Detroit, Texas) the second half. They are 8-16 vs. those five teams...

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) I hope we're at least interesting in April next year. That will be quite an accomplishment, a real building block for the future. Whatever, dude. Maybe if you revise your expectations enough, this can still be a great season. I don't think I've ever gone on record since May saying that this could be a "great season," unless they won the division and advanced in the playoffs. I don't understand why several people on this website think that I'm some pie-in-the-sky optimist who thinks this team is all sunshine and rainbows. I don't. This season has been tremendously disappointing, but there are reasons to be optimistic for the future. I do believe statistics show that if Dunn and Rios still contain the ability to play baseball at a major league level, there will be some return to form in their statistics next season. Perhaps you (and others) believe that I'm deluding myself, but I just can't see those two players playing much worse than they have in 2011, if they do any work whatsoever in the offseason. I believe they can compete in 2012, although there are too many unknowns to determine if they can. I admit that I thought the White Sox could win this division as late as September 3rd, because I thought the Tigers weren't particularly good, particularly in the pitching department. I thought the Sox could play to a level where they could win possibly 83-87 games, and at 68-65 were in a position to still do so, but that was before I did the research on other 11-22 type starts. After doing the research on the 11-22 starts, it was clear that 78ish wins was more probable, and I think this is an important lesson going forward, especially in that it's real hard for mediocre teams that have scuffled to play sustained .600ish baseball. It will surprise most of you to learn that I was one of the many calling for Williams' head prior to and in the opening stages of the 2008 season.

Let's say we took 2/3 from Detroit over the weekend, something that people say we would have had to have done in order to be in this. They would be currently at 78-64, and the Sox would currently be at 73-67, 4 games out (3 in the loss column). Does anyone really believe that being 4 out with 3 left to play with Detroit, as hot as they are, that Detroit could be caught even if we had taken 2/3? For the record, I did believe that the division was bad enough to win with the Sox's slow start, but I also believe our pitching set us up to go deeper in the playoffs than other teams.

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) For me, it's the fact the Tigers are the better team, and they made some really solid acquisitions the last few months that added even more to their insane lineup depth and solidified their starting pitching. That has more to do with the fact the season is over, and to be honest, I think the Tigers might have possibly won the division even with Dunn/Rios having solid seasons. I completely agree with this. Getting swept in Detroit was about 40% of the story over the last month, but Detroit's hot streak had much more to do with sealing our doom.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 11:39 AM) But according to the 11-22 start, it was impossible to win the division and nearly impossible to finish over .500, so skeptical fans were never buying into the fact that they were "really" back into the race, even at 3 games back for the very briefest period of time. It was impossible to win the division unless Detroit and everyone else did not finish more than a handful of games over .500. A rather important and realistic caveat that was in play until about 1 week ago.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 11:30 AM) Because nobody really cares about beating the Twins under this year's circumstances? I mean let's say you're 100% correct. Who cares? What, have we solved the Twins now? You're forever scraping and clawing and trying to find something to be positive about. And that's fine. But don't be surprised when nobody is really feeling you. Most are not going to look back at this season and say to themselves, "Well, we're sitting at home once again this October. But hey, we've figured out the Twins!" Your entire argument this thread has been "we haven't beaten the Twins when it has been meaningful". This is exactly what I have attempted to respond to. In summation, I have just argued that there was a meaningful series that we not only beat Minnesota in, but we swept them, and on the road to boot. I understand this may not be meaningful to most people. It appears as though the only thing that is meaningful is clear division winner and advancement in the playoffs. Nevertheless, with the luck/lack of skill we have had against Minnesota directly, effectively ending their potential fairy-tale chance of a comeback in 2011 was pretty f***ing meaningful to me on August 5th, 6th and 7th.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 11:07 AM) We're done before Labor Day and this is making it interesting? That's a pretty low threshhold. What is with the straw man responses? Yes, we made it interesting on August 5th, 6th and 7th, against a Minnesota team we had not beaten, IN Minnesota. Yes, we are done before labor day. Do you see how those two things are not mutually exclusive? Do you also see how the point of making it interesting on August 5th was that we beat the Twins when it actually counted a great deal?

When are people going to finally admit that Detroit going 19-7 over their last 26, even besides the sweep, might have SOMETHING to do with the fact that our season is over?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 10:59 AM) So when does the cookie tossing start? Could've folded and headed for 5th? You're really grasping. It started and ended with the sweep @Detroit. I think the more pertinent things are that as of Aug 5, Detroit had not gotten hot or shown any signs that they were much better than a .500 team, and Minnesota was pretty effectively still in that race, especially when factoring in the record of catching the Tigers late.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) Well you can't possibly be referring to these last three games. The 5-1 record against them last month? Again, from a technical aspect, they meant something to us. As we were still 'in it'. It meant nothing to them. Seems like you're trying to say us beating them now when they're down is the same as them sending us home in '02, '03, '04, '06, and last year. It just isn't. But if you can find some type of joy in beating this thrift shop version of the Twins, while at the same time finishing a distant second to the Tigers, then by all means. Of course I'm not referring to these last three games. I'm referring to the three games from August 5th-7th, when the Twins were a game and a half behind us at 8 out, many here argued they were still even in the division race. We were 6.5 out with 6 left to play with the Tigers. The Tigers had also just gone 22-22 over their preceding 44 games, which suggested to many that they weren't going to finish too many games over .500. I know the revisionists here will pretend like all of these things are irrelevent, but the fact of the matter is that we could have folded up and headed for 5th place but made it interesting and effectively ended Minnesota's season.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:59 AM) What are you trying to prove, exactly? That we beat them in meaningful games this season, which you seem to have disputed. Were those games meaningful at the time they were played or not?

The AL Central has a .500 overall record against the AL West. The two division leaders have nearly identical records, and although Anaheim is the third best team in either division, Seattle and Oakland are really really bad. If the AL Central finishes with an above .500 record against the AL west, isn't it a better division? The NL Central is also clearly a bad division as well, worse than the AL Central. The AL Central beat the NL Central 18-12 in interleague this year. It can be argued that the NL west has three bad teams in it as well. Are the only two "good" divisions the two Eastern ones?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) This year it will be 4 of the top 10, unless the Angels pull a comeback (they would make 5). Last year was 4 of the top 10 as well. Right, so 75% of the playoff teams came from the top 10(ish) in payroll 10 years ago, and the last two years it's 50%.

Also, I think if you're saying it didn't matter that we went up and swept them when we were 6.5 out with 6 left to play against detroit on August 5th-7th, you're lying to yourself (Minnesota was 8 out of first entering that series)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:42 AM) If it gets them off of this stupid mental block with beating the Twins, I don't care who is in their uniforms, it matters. If they go back to getting their asses kicked against them next year, it was worthless. Yeah, I'm just enjoying beating that team down. I'm not sure between the two teams which season was more disappointing.

QUOTE (Felix @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:36 AM) Or you could guess that payroll doesn't correlate to won games and never really has. In 2000 (the first example I looked at), 6 of the top 9 teams went to the postseason. Edit: In 2001, 6 of the top 11 teams went to the postseason.

This thread could go in either place, because I'm really wondering if this bizarre trend that includes the White Sox has a somewhat empirical explanation. If I had to guess, salaries have finally gotten so inflated that the variance in returns to salary is jacked way up.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 08:23 AM) Yes. Beating the Twins when neither team is in contention is worthless. Other then game #163, we've never beaten them when it actually meant something. In other words, the Sox going 11-7 against the 2005 83-79 Twins after they had won 3 division titles in a row - that meant absolutely nothing. If the Sox go 6-12 against that Twins team, Cleveland might win the division.

Is this a strange year, or what? Seems like there are an inordinate amount of teams spending and not getting results, compared to most years. 7 of the top 12 will likely miss the playoffs. LA Angels - 77-65 (5th in AL) - $138 million in payroll (4th overall) White Sox - 71-69 (7th in AL) - $127 million in payroll (5th overall) Chicago Cubs - 61-81 (2nd worst in NL) - $125 million in payroll (6th overall) New York Mets - 69-71 (8th in NL) - $118 million in payroll (7th overall) San Francisco Giants 75-67 (t5th in NL) - $118 million in payroll (8th overall) Minnesota Twins - 58-84 (worst in AL) - $112 million in payroll (9th overall) LA Dodgers - 69-72 (9th in NL) - $104 million in payroll (12th overall)

Just so I'm clear... in 2012 if we lose to the Twins it's the absolute end of the world, because they are so bad. However, if we beat the Twins, it does not matter or count, because they are so bad. Is this essentially correct?

Nevertheless, can't we conclude that the 100-win Cardinals were winning an awful lot of games against some of the worst teams in baseball that season, and that their 100 win season might not have meant quite as much as, say, the 99-win White Sox?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 6, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) Sample size much? So 250 games isn't enough to conclude the AL was way, way better than the NL that season?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 6, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) What about the 100-win Cardinals? The 100 win Cardinals who lost the NLCS to a team they finished ahead of by 11 games? How good could they be if they couldn't win a 7-game series against an 89-win NL team? The interleague record that season was AL 136- NL 116.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Sep 6, 2011 -> 12:26 PM) This was done for the AL obviously, but the Astros bottomed out at 15 games under .500 in 2005 before winning 88 or 89 and making it to the WS. What was the Twins low-water mark in '06? I think it was well beyond the 33 game mark. The '06 Twins started 14-19 and bottomed out at 7 games under .500 at 25-32. The '05 Astros did start 15-30 (12-21 in the first 33) and did make the playoffs, but the NL and particularly the NL Central was a far inferior league/division at that time. The '83 White Sox started 13-20, bottoming out at 16-24.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 5, 2011 -> 11:46 PM) So, you're saying that the people who gave up in the first month of the season were both correct and had good reason to believe that. As long as they were certain the ALC winner would have more than 84 wins, yes. The people who thought this team could win the division if 84 was enough would not have been incorrect necessarily.