Greg Hibbard

QUOTE (Lillian @ Aug 29, 2011 -> 11:29 AM) The fact is that the Sox are 5TH in the League in ERA, but near last in baseball in runs scored. With any kind of average production from Rios and Dunn, there is little doubt that this team would be considerably better than one game above .500. I don't care what the record was early, or what it has been since. The reality is that these two players, making big money, hitting in, or near, the heart of the order, have been unbelievably bad. I understand that management was reluctant to bench high priced players with good career numbers, but they waited much too long to make changes, when there were other options available in the organization. Both de Aza and Viciedo were putting up great numbers at AAA. There was no accountability regarding the players, and now there seems to be no accountability for management, in the eyes of those who have no problem with the way this situation was handled. For my part, I wouldn't spend a dime on tickets to watch this fiasco. That's my way of holding the organization accountable. I like the way people consistently want to keep everything good about this team exactly the way that it is, and fix just Dunn and Rios. It would be nice if baseball was that cut and dried. Every year, every team has 1-2 players who struggle beyond our wildest expectations. In 2001, it was David Wells and Royce Clayton. In 2002, it was Todd Ritchie and his 5-15 record. In 2003, it was Paul Konerko and his impossibly low .230 average that was even worse than that for most of the year. In 2004, it was Joe Crede hitting .239. The list goes on from there.

I guess the interesting aspect of fan reaction since May has been this: there's seemingly absolutely no room for losing any series at any time. In most people eye's, we should be winning at least 2/3 or 3/4 of each and every home series. We should be beating the bad teams on the road, every single time. We should be splitting all of our road trips. Look around baseball. Look at other seasons for other successful teams. Do you see them doing these things at all times? Of course not. The best teams of all time still only win about 60% of their games. Many playoff teams get away with merely winning 57 or 58% of their games. This means they take bad game and series losses at many points throughout every season. Let's talk about Detroit for a second, the very team we are chasing. Just before their recent 8/10 surge, they lost a home series to a bad Minnesota team. The week before that, they lost a game to a certain Kansas City pitcher named Chen. They split a two game home series to Oakland earlier in the second half. They can't seemingly beat the White Sox in a series recently to save their life, a team behind them that they need to be beating. This just goes back to the All-Star break. Totally unacceptable, am I right? I suppose many will look back on individual at bats, and pitching performances and components to this team and want to blame those things for the 2011 season. I blame one thing - a horrid 4-18 stretch that was something the team simply could not recover from. Since May 6th, they've won about exactly as many games as I would have expected them to - 56% of them. A clip about equivalent to a playoff caliber team. It's too bad that 22 games spelled the almost certain doom of this season.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Aug 28, 2011 -> 09:38 PM) But I'm sure that between Rios & Dunn there were very easily 1 or 2 games we would have won if DeAza, Lillibridge, or Viciedo were getting at bats instead of having an uninspiring 0 for 4. Many people had the Sox at a 93-95 win pace going into this season. They've been on a 91-win pace (percentage-wise) since May 6th. I guess Dunn and Rios cost them some games, yes. However, there are bad losses for every team in every season, even the most talented and successful ones. If Detroit had won 98 games in 2011, and the Sox won 95 and missed the playoffs, I wonder what the reaction would have been.

That 4-18 stretch is the first thing that will come to mind. If they finish 1-2 games out it would be hard to imagine them having a much better record from May on given their overall talent, although I'm sure many here will cherry pick losses.

Can someone please summarize what's actually happening in this Thome process and where we are currently at?

We need a Griffey-like "WHERE WOULD HE PLAY" silhouette, stat.

Caulfield, there are intangible fan-related reasons why I think Buehrle's 3 million dollars must be absorbed, regardless of the outcome of this season. This is one of the three most-beloved White Sox of the past decade, a guy whose number is going up on the wall when it's all said and done. The fans and Mark deserve and opportunity to salute each other. Too often this has been handled so badly by the organization - the Fisk, Baines, Guillen and Thomas departures all had degrees of acrimony and drama. $3 million seems like a nice chunk to save, but if the history books say the 2011 White Sox season is disasterous or disappointing, it's both of those at $130 million or at $127 million.

It's really remarkable how this player has transformed himself from an above-average major league player to "borderline-borderline" hall-of-famer. I don't think he's even close yet, but he just keeps getting better and better, against all odds. I can't think of a another player who has made himself so much better at 35 than he ever was at 25 (if it weren't for roids I'd say Bonds). If he stays healthy and plays at a statistical clip that's slightly below-average (for him) over the next four seasons, he'll truly be in that discussion. What an amazing career. So, so proud to root for this player.

It's a bad idea to have him start at DH, unless you guys want to carry three catchers all season. If he starts at DH and AJ gets injured in a game....well you know

I really hope the White Sox take a hard look at their ticket prices this offseason and realize they cannot continue to charge this much money for 3 hours of entertainment in the 2011 world of HD/3D tv.

Tonight, Cleveland falls to third place.

records since May 6 (current playoff teams in bold): BOS 60-29 NYY 56-34 TEX 54-36 CHW 50-38 DET 50-39 TAM 47-42 TOR 47-43 LAA 46-44 MIN 41-50 CLE 39-48 SEA 37-51 OAK 37-51 BAL 33-56 KC 33-58

Resiliency.

Also I really don't see how you can blame the organization for believing that career .240-.285 hitters will, at some point, hit ANYWHERE near their career norms.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 06:22 PM) Which is an indictment on the organization, doesn't make it resilient. As you've said, there have been areas in this lineup that could have easily been addressed but we refused to do so. I disagree. I think there are things you can be critical of this organization of this season (not moving down/benching Dunn and Rios fast enough), but it can also take credit for certain things (sticking with Pierre, finding Humber, straightening out the mess of the bullpen). It seems as though those quickest to criticize see nothing but negatives. I think it is a positive that despite all the obstacles, we are still in this thing. Somehow.

I recognize that this team has grossly underperformed, and I'm often extremely angry about it. However, with that all said, the existing peripherals of this team suggest a turnaround is not only possible, but somewhat likely. When we had fifth starters like Danny "6.00 ERA" Wright and a rotating cast of AAA busts in 2003-4, I really didn't think they necessarily had it in them to definitely win, and when they didn't, I wasn't that surprised, honestly. In 2000, when the team simply ran out of gas in the second half, and the pitching stunk in August and September, frankly a playoff collapse was fairly predictable. However - the 2011 pitching is good, the bullpen in solid, and the hitting appears to be somewhat fixable/addressable if we wake up and just take our collective heads out of our asses, which is not really unlike 2005. If this team puts together a lineup at some point that can generate 4-5 runs a game, we're easily capable of going on something like a 15-6 tear.

QUOTE (chisoxt @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 04:46 PM) The constant comparison of us to the Cubs is another metric I wish we would discard...I wish people would understand that our competetion is the American League, not the Cubs. Winning an ugly pig contest is no consolation whatsoever. Very well, which of these American League teams would you rather be this season? Royals, Orioles, Blue Jays, Rays, Athletics, Mariners? Would you rather be the Angels at 5 back of a much stronger Rangers team (than the tribe and tigs)? Would you rather be the Tigs or Tribe, who both have worse records since the middle of June than the Sox, who are gaining ground on both, albeit very gradual? The bottom line is that the Sox are a top 5 AL franchise over the short and intermediate term. The Cubs was merely a convenient example of a team in ACTUAL disarray.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 04:12 PM) That is the stuff that scares the s*** out of me. I said it months ago, but if we win this division with a terrible record (or even finish pretty close), there will be tons of people clamoring to keep Ozzie because he "kept us in it". Certainly, he should have benched Dunn or moved him down, but I think some decisions he can take complete credit for - like sticking with Pierre at leadoff despite the critics (.330/.366/.400/.766 post ASB).

QUOTE (winninguglyin83 @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 03:50 PM) Judging by the crowds this season, White Sox fans don't view this team as resilient. overpaid and underperforming seems more like it. But Donny Lucy will save the day. Does fan perception and attendance define how resilient it is? I wonder what we can then say about August and September of 2005...

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) I swear to God, if the pitching staff suffers in AJ's absence (while he hits about .175 with Dunn's K rate) and we finish 7-8 GB in the division and someone says "well, we'd have won the AL Central if we wouldn't have lost Pierzynski," and that is used as yet another excuse for bringing back Ozzie and KW, I'll.... The Indians and Twins have each had 8-10 more major injuries than the Sox this year. You're forgetting about Adam Dunn's brain injury and Alex Rios' heart injury. Perhaps the Wizard of Oz will fix them....

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) 87 or even 86 MIGHT get a team in a game 163, but it could go the other way where even 89 or 90 is necessary. So which team, the recently .500ish Tigers or the recently .450ish Indians is going to go on a .550ish tear to win those 89 or 90 games? I just don't see it. 87 wins at most wins this division.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) Sample size isn't huge, but Flowers has a 3.00 cERA. We know we can't lose anything arm-related. And Tyler knows how to take a walk and hit for power. I really don't think this is much of a loss. We do lose some leadership with AJ, that's for sure, but in tangible production, this isn't that big a loss. I agree with this. Pierzynski is a huge liability against speed teams (particularly the Twins).

QUOTE (flavum @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 11:48 AM) 28-14, including 4-2 vs the Tigers and 7-4 vs the Indians. Sox do that, playoffs. If not, going to need a lot of help. Since June 14th, the Tigers are 27-27. Since May 4th, the Indians are 9 games below .500. Since May 6th, the White Sox are 11 games over .500 Yes, both the Tribe and Tigs have some easy teams on the schedule. This is the same Tribe team that just split 8 games with Baltimore and Minnesota, and lost two of three at home to KC (sound familiar)? This is the same Tigs team that suddenly has problems winning series against the Sox, and also doesn't have a winning streak longer than three games. Given all that, I seriously don't get why people think the division winner is going to have any more than 85-86 wins this year, tops.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 15, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) I like what you have brought this season GH. Its hard to remain optimistic while watching this team Thanks. I find it very hard to remain optimistic as well.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 15, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) LOL. Nothing like complimenting an organization on their mediocrity. What exactly are we referring to as mediocrity, when it comes to this organization? If we're referring to this season, given the statistical hurdles that have been set in our path, I'm not sure what this organization as an organization could have done. We have a worse hole at DH than in '10. We have many positional players expected to produce simply not doing so. Is this a failing of the organization, to expect players to produce at career norms, or even slightly below average? Really, what the f*** could you do? If we'd had even slightly disappointing numbers from Dunn and Rios (.230, normal power) we'd be comfortably in front by probably 7-8-9 games. If we're referring to the White Sox long term, then I'll point this out again: over the last 21 seasons, only three teams have won more total games in the American League than the White Sox. I'll bet you can guess two of them. The third is Cleveland. If we finish ahead of the tribe by 2-3 games we'll be in third place. Other than the Yankees and Red Sox, I'm having a hard time coming up with an AL franchise I'd rather be rooting for over the past couple of decades. We're the only team to win a World Series in this division since its founding. I suppose the Angels and Blue Jays have had good segments during that span, and the Twins have been successful as an organization as well. The Tribe have gone to many playoffs, but the big one has eluded them. The Rays, Orioles, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers, Tigers and Royals? Many hollow playoff appearances and a lot of lost seasons. We're doing something right as an organization, which is why we won a World Series. I know people desperately want to write it off as a fluke, but every year this team seems to compete, no matter which players disappoint us. When everyone performs above our expectations, we win the division and put ourselves in position to go further. When everyone performs even well below expectations, we still compete. Pardon me if I find value in that.