Greg Hibbard

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) A legitimate streak will be impossible with so many players performing at a sub-standard level. We're f***ed if/when PK ever cools off. We've already seen CQ and Ramirez cool down considerably the last couple weeks. so your answer is "4"?

I also think their two best chances at long streaks will be August 8th through 21st, and September 15th through 28th.

The longest winning steak the White Sox have had this season is a single 4 game streak. They have also won 3 in a row twice. This is anamolous, particularly for a Guillen-led Sox team. Under Guillen, the longest winning streaks have been: 2010 - 11 (also a 9, 7, and 5 gamer) 2009 - 7 (2 four gamers) 2008 - 8 (with two 7s) 2007 - 4 (5 times) 2006 - 8 (twice) 2005 - 8 (three times) 2004 - 5 (4 three other times) Generally speaking, it would seem like we are due for at least one longer streak this season, if not several more 4 game ones or a 5 gamer. What do you think the longest winning streak of the 2011 season will be? I'm going to guess 7 games.

I wonder how much of our team ERA is attributable to bullpen blowups. I'm not saying that's justified, but we are in the top five in QS, and just three shy of the AL lead.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:10 AM) Again...worth adding is the comparison to the rest of the league. I'm harping on this a lot lately...but offense is way, way, way down everywhere. In 2005, the White Sox staff put up a 3.61 ERA, and that was tied with Cleveland for the best in the AL, Houston and St. Louis were better, and the best ERA in the league was 3.49. In 2011, the White Sox staff has put up a 3.84 ERA, and that's good for 14th best in baseball (strangely, 13th best is Cleveland, 0.01 runs better than us). The best ERA in the league is 2.98. The average ERA this year is 3.83, in 2005 it was 4.28. Offense is down. A lot. Hawk was noting last night I think that he's never seen so many 2-1 and 1-0 games. For once, he's right, we haven't seen this level of offensive performance since baseball got "Big". fair point, but I think we should talk in terms of AL only, because NL eras are so different. They are 7th best in the AL this season, and .01 away from 6th best.

I guess the most "encouraging" thing is that our stats seem much more in line with the 2005 corpseball edition than the recent 07-10 editions. The pitching stats seem better and the hitting much worse. I'm with the people who say it's hard to imagine this team playing worse. And yet, somehow playing our worst means 3 games under .500 and 4 games out.

but then again.... 1993 White Sox first 81 games 42-39 last 81 games 52-29 Just sayin'. I had forgotten how mediocre their start was and how hot they got in the second half. Just sayin'

Here's the most hilariously absurd thing: Pierre's just barely ahead of Dunn in OBP despite Dunn having the worst season imaginable (.311 vs. .308)

Why not just send him away for three weeks with the hitting coach of his choice? Whoever he feels can help to get him mentally/physically right, so that he can come back in the second half and hopefully contribute. We don't need him @ col or @ cub, and the last two series before the break we could get a look at viciedo for other reasons (pierre).

It's time for a winning streak, people.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jun 26, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) LH is the kind of pitcher Sox struggle against! The White Sox have hit .356 off of him in 3 career appearances to the tune of a 6.88 ERA. This is all 2008-2010, too.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 05:37 PM) It can't possibly be hyperbole, as it's what I'm actually doing. And I'm doing it because, despite their climbing, I am very confident that they will do the same thing they've done many times before and choke down the stretch or, at the very worst, make the playoffs with a weak record and get booted. This would result in Ozzie and KW keeping their jobs for another few years. I firmly believe that that is the worst thing for the organization moving forward. We've been over this. Ozzie and Kenny have been together since 2004. In '04 they had season ending injuries to their two best hitters in late May and still ended up with a very competitive record. They never led. In '05, we all know what happened. In '06, I will concede that a 12-17 september was a choke job. In '07, they tanked very early. In '08, they won the division. In '09, they were never close to first place late in the season. In '10 they obviously choked down the stretch. So to be clear, when you say "will do the same thing they've done many times before and choke down the stretch" - you're referring to the '06 and '10 seasons only? We have two seasons where they "choked down the stretch", and two seasons in which they made the playoffs, one of which was winning the world series. Yet you favor one over the other so much you are boycotting the team. Seems like a really extreme position to have.

One of these days when we all least expect it Dunn is just going to crank three homers in a game.

I just learned that Juan Pierre and I share a birthday. Ugh.

Caulfield - you refuse the directly answer the question I asked, despite doubting that this white sox team was "climbing" on the previous page. To this point, what winning percentage would you have needed to see over the past 43 games to convince you this team was "climbing"? You also claim that Minnesota has done a better job of "climbing"... Does their recent 15-2 stretch mean more to you than the 8-25 they immediately did before that? If so, shouldn't the White Sox most recent stretch of 26-17 mean more to you than the 4-18 they put up previously? The Twins have now lost their last two - does that mean as much to you as the two games the White Sox lost up in Minnesota? There is a serious double standard at work here. Even if the Twins go 19-0 against the White Sox, they have go .500 against everyone else just to win 84 games. Does anyone honestly think they can do either of those things?

Let's go back to May 6th. What winning percentage since then would you have liked to have seen to convince you this team was "climbing"? .700? .800? .900?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 01:52 PM) It's something I'm doing right now. I refuse to buy another ticket until some changes are made, namely removing Ozzie and likely KW. I'd stop watching the games entirely, but I just don't have the heart for that. Supporting them financially no matter what they do is, IMO, a terrible mistake. If this isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is. This team is 4.5 games out, and climbing. If they don't make the playoffs this season, I agree that changes need to be made. It boggles the mind that you would boycott this team as they continue to gain ground in the division.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 05:32 PM) Then how do you explain their well below average record against teams under .500? This team is 14-11 since May 6th against sub .500 teams. Call me an optimist, but the 4-18 stretch during mid april to early may is going to be akin to the other worst stretches of any season, and focusing on data in that is foolhardy. Outside of those 22 games, the White Sox have played very well, at .611 clip. Does it feel more correct to you to put more emphasis on those 22 games where they were worse than any white sox team in memory, or the other 54 games in which their record is much more in line with expectations? In other words, almost 3/4 of their games are being played at a clip we expected. When that number hits 80% of their games...or 85% of their games...then will you think that the .611 edition overshadows the .190 edition? I'm not sure I understand this. In 2009, a year you seem to be emphasizing, this team cut payroll severely from $121M to $96M, to become a middle of the pack payroll. Everyone knew that it was going to be a "restructuring" or a "rebuilding" or a "reloading" year. Still, they went 79-83 and won more than half of their home games...how exactly do you evaluate that season with respect to the above comment? Is 43-38 for the 2009 season an "average" record given a below-.500 team that just slashed their bloated payroll? The last 5 years? So we're including going 7-11 to that 07 Indians team that was a heartbeat away from the World Series? In 2007 and 2008 we crushed the Royals at a 12-6 clip each year. In 2009, as I mentioned, we slashed payroll, won 79 games...yet still had an above .500 record against the Indians. Yes, we had a .500 clip against the Royals, but what kind of team were we fielding? We were .500 or better against both teams last year. What exactly should we be expecting, here? I don't agree with this evaluation, because evaluating teams in terms of talent going into a season is very tricky with respect to the unpredictable nature of baseball statistics. Which would have been easier to predict, Konerko's 03 season or Konerko's 11 season? For a player as "consistent" as him, those two years are literally night and day. I'm also not really sure why people want to say this team "underachieved" during the entire Williams era. I'm not entirely sure what you do with the Thomas injury in 2001, the Thomas/Ordonez injuries of 2004, the 2009 payroll slash...or the fact that this team clearly overachieved to win the freaking World Series in one of those years. Can a team "underachieve" and still win 89-90 games? Maybe by 1-3 games, I guess... I honestly wonder how many games the 2006 or 2010 team would have had to have win for people to be satisfied if they DIDN'T win the division. 92? 93? If they had won that many games and not won the division would you say they "underachieved"? I dunno. It's really hard to say a 92 win team "underachieved". My suggestion is to take a look at history and note our 49-25 record against the Detroit Tigers from 2005-2008, despite the fact that two of those Tiger teams were pretty damned good. At times, one division teams seem to "own" another divisional team. They play them so often and regularly that there are bound to be swings like this. It's called variance. Guillen still had an above .500 record against the Twins from 2004-2008, better than you would expect against a team that is almost always competitive. The last 35 games, we've had a swing. Swings happen. Is there no perspective for such a thing on this board?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 11:38 AM) They could be anywhere in that range, I suppose with an extreme high and low of about 87 and 77. I'm expecting closer to what I said, though, with 80-85. I truly do not expect them to make any noise if they do indeed make the playoffs, and IMO, that is the worst potential outcome. As I said, I think that it would result in another few years of this regime and I again truly believe that this organization needs some fresh blood in the management areas. I believe this roster is talented enough to hang with anyone in the AL, if they play to their potential. I happen to believe that what's going on has to do with normal baseball slumps, which happen to all teams and players, and you see it as gross mismanagement. Given Dunn and Rios' performances - what exactly would you do differently with them? With Peavy? With the bullpen that has been so inconsistent? I'll tell you what I saw last night - I saw a winner. The bullpen was amazing, with Santos nearly unhittable. Last night was the first time this whole season I said "we've got this" heading into the 9th. It appears that Santos is really coming into his own.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 11:26 AM) Or a cold stretch in August/September. And yes, they weren't as bad as they started, but they're not a .600 winning percentage team either. They're somewhere in the middle, which will have them finishing likely around 80-85 wins. It seems to be a never-ending cycle. 80 wins in unlikely, IMO - do you think that they will be .500 the rest of the way? a .550 record the rest of the way would give them between 84-85 wins. a .580 record would give them 87 wins. Either one of those could win this division. I could see them winning at either clip for the rest of the season.

I'm just shocked that so many have such a great idea about what will happen to this team, when the 11-22 start and the 26-17 since are really completely jeckyl and hyde scenarios. Yes, one lost 5 in a row to the Twins and Tigers, and the other lost 4 of 5 to the same teams. If you can't see differences despite those small sample sizes, then I guess there's no point in watching the rest of the season. We will win series against each of those teams at some point this season. This team is IMPROVING. It was abysmal at the start of the year, and now it appears to be competitive against most teams. I'm quite confused by those of you who continue to focus on 5 games as we continue to generally win series after series. You ask why this season is different? We are 4.5 out despite a team OPS and team ERA in the bottom half of the AL, with reason to believe many players will return to form over the course of the season. I can't imagine our team collectively putting up worse numbers (despite some bright spots) than a .718 OPS and a .254 team batting average. 3 of our 5 starters (Floyd, Danks, Jackson) have had disappointing numbers, and a 4th is right around his career numbers (Buehrle), and the 5th has been injured most of the year (Peavy). Humber is pitching well, thank god. Our bullpen has given up tons of games they normally don't, our defense has had game-squandering problems. This entire thing is really going to come down to whether a single 4-18 stretch early on can kill a season.

Another point that seems to be lost is that we play in a really bad division, seemingly. I'd be very surprised if the winner of the AL Central wins 90 games. If the winner was going to be in the 94-98 game range, then yes, obviously it's crucial that you beat the teams in your own division. It tends to matter less that you win divisional games in divisions that are won with 85,86,88 games. It's not insignificant, but it matters yes.

The 2006 Cardinals went 39-42 in the NL Central and won the World Series. The 2009 Rockies were 33-39 vs. the NL West and won a wild card. At least three other teams that I've found in a cursory glance over the past 5 years have barely been .500 vs. their division and won it. (06 padres, 09 angels among them) The 2010 world champion giants were also just 4 games over vs. their division. Obviously, we can't continue to win 33% of our divisional games, but I hardly think we can draw any conclusions from 17 games.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 11:40 PM) That's the problem. The 2 series that they lost to division opponents. Those are the ones you can't keep losing. If they had dropped 5 games to NYY and BOS, we would have said "they can't beat contenders" if they had dropped 5 games to the Cubs and Oakland, we would have said "they can't beat the bad teams" if they had dropped 5 day games, we would have said "they can't win day games" I just can't bring myself to cherry pick FIVE f***ing games out of 43 that they won 60+% of and find much fault in losing a couple of them. QUOTE (Andrew @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 12:43 AM) They'll lose one at least. Team is completely incapable of sweeping s***ty teams when they're down. See Oakand @ 10G losing streak for support. Unbelievable - now not sweeping a FOUR GAME series is the problem??? The 2003 Detroit Tigers, the team that nearly lost 120 games, played a total of 7 4-game series. They didn't get swept in 6 of them. That should tell you how hard it is to sweep ANY team in a four game series.

Since dropping those two games at the Twins, the Sox have won two series in a row. That's 10-4-1 in their last 15 series for anyone counting, with only 1 home series loss to Detroit, and the others road series losses to a pretty decent Toronto team, a good Texas team and a red-hot Minnesota. Now 26-17 (.605) since May 6th.