Thad Bosley

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 12:38 PM) Harold Baines will be on the ballot for possible induction into the HOF by the "Game Era Committee" along with Albert Belle, Will Clark, Orel Hershiser, Davey Johnson, Mark McGwire, Lou Piniella, John Schuerholz, Bud Selig and George Steinbrenner. Probably won't get in and I've always viewed him as a little shy of being deserving but as a Sox fan I would like to see it happen. There are definitely worse players in the HOF. http://baseballhall.org/hof/2017-todays-game-era-ballot Just 16 home runs and 134 hits separates him from being just shy and a near shoe-in. The combo of the 16 homers and 134 hits would have put him in a very exclusive club of guys who had 3,000 hits AND 400 home runs. If you check the records, I believe there are fewer than ten who have accomplished both feats (admitting I haven't looked at this stat in a while). I thought back in 2001 when Frank Thomas went down with a season-ending injury and they plugged Baines into the DH slot that he would get there. But he was 41 at the time and had just flat run out of gas, and they ended up releasing him in June of that year, if I recall correctly. So close, yet so far, unfortunately.

QUOTE (shipps @ Oct 3, 2016 -> 10:34 AM) Hahn says that they absolutely under achieved this year. They dont think there is a problem with this team. The team that after the hot start over the first 33 games, played the last 129 like a team that loses 100 games a year? No problem with this team? GMAFB

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 2, 2016 -> 04:57 PM) Folks: Just some numbers that may be of interest to you for discussion purposes. To me its pretty clear what the needs are (not counting of course a front office, field managers and coaches who really know what they are doing) offense and the bullpen. Given a less than stellar free agent market it will be interesting to see how the Sox solve these areas assuming they are "going for it again." (And everything I've been hearing is that they will but time will tell...things can change) White Sox By the Numbers… The Sox went 78 - 84 this season, a .481 win percentage. That is a two game improvement over 2015. It is the team’s fourth straight losing season and seventh in the last 10 years. You have to go back to 1986 through 1989 the last time the Sox had four losing seasons in a row and you have to go back to the time period from 1968 through 1980 the last time they had such a sustained period of losing. The 13 seasons from 68-80 saw the club have only two winning seasons and a .500 year in that time span. They started the season going 23-10 then lost 24 of their next 34 games. They failed to make the playoffs for the 8th straight season. Playoff appearances by teams in the A.L. Central Division (1994-2016) Cleveland= 9 Minnesota= 6 Detroit= 5 White Sox = 3 Kansas City = 2 The Sox scored three runs or less in 74 out of 162 games. That’s 45.6% Here’s how that has compared to recent years: 2013: Sox scored three runs or less in 82 of 162 games played (50.6%) 2014: Sox scored three runs or less in 77 of 162 games played (47.5%) 2015: Sox scored three runs or less in 82 of 162 games played (50.6%) The Sox were shutout 11 times. The Sox scored one run in a game 20 times. The Sox scored two runs in a game 19 times. The Sox lost 22 games this year when holding an opponent to three runs or less. The White Sox were 6-22 (.214) at Cleveland, Detroit and Kansas City this season. The White Sox are 50-88 (.362) at Cleveland, Detroit and Kansas City 2012-2016 seasons. Robin Ventura is 375-435 .462 win percentage in his five years as manager. That is the worst win percentage in franchise history for any manager who lasted at least five years. Here is how it compares: Ventura .462 Dykes .489 Tanner .492 LaRussa .504 Manuel .515 Guillen .524 Lopez .562 The White Sox won 15 games when trailing in the 7th inning or later. The breakdown: 7th inning: 4 times 8th inning: 7 times 9th inning: 4 times The White Sox lost 14 games when leading in the 7th inning or later. The breakdown: 7th inning: 3 times 8th inning: 8 times 9th inning: 2 times 11th inning: 1 time What pitchers were responsible for those blown leads/games? Here is the breakdown (some games had more than one pitcher…) Jones: 6 times Robertson: 3 times Albers: 2 times Duke: 2 times Beck: 1 time Carroll: 1 time Fullmer: 1 time Kahnle: 1 time Sale: 1 time White Sox were7-7 in extra inning games in 2016. I hope everyone has a good, safe off season. Mark The scariest part of this season is that after the 23-10 start, for the rest of the 129 games on the schedule, which represented 80% of the season, the team played at a winning percentage that over an entire season would have produced a 100 loss season. That's what makes all of this talk about "going for it" next year questionable, at least at the moment. The starting point is a roster that played very poorly from early May all the way until early October. So with that in mind, it will be interesting, indeed, to see how the front office conducts itself this offseason.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 2, 2016 -> 07:41 PM) When the White Sox were at their apex, and the Cubs sucked, they couldn't out draw them. The Sox don't have that fan base. Period. Are you surprised at this? Only 5 trips to the postseason over the last 56 years. What more do you expect?

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Oct 2, 2016 -> 11:15 AM) You aren't new here. This argument has been going in circles for the past year +. Everybody is bored with it, except Thad Bosley who isn't happy unless he has something to complain about. Excellent post. Learned quite a bit.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 2, 2016 -> 10:29 AM) So not even league average is a strong showing. You are funny. It's absolutely a strong showing given the park's capacity. Get a grip.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 2, 2016 -> 08:37 AM) So what happened in 2008? 2012? Well, in 2008, the last time the Sox went to the postseason and one of only five times in the past 56 years they've done so, they drew 2.5 million plus fans to the park. Last I looked, that was considered a very strong attendance showing. Now why you keep bringing up 2012, I'll never know. They didn't win anything that year. They did not go to the postseason, so it doesn't even matter. Throw it on the scrap heap with the other 50 years of non-postseason appearances of the past 56 years and forget about it already.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 2, 2016 -> 08:14 AM) So now he is an asshole for cutting down the upper deck. You are hysterical. By the way the 66-96 Cubs drew about 2500 more per game in 2006. Hey, I know! Let's play a game. It's called "Dick Allen puts words in his mouth and his mouth only!" Can we play that game, Dick? You down with that? Because it really does get old and boring watching you either twist words or put words in other people's mouths just to support your craving to argue just for the sake of arguing. Just stop with the nonsense already. Didn't say Reinsdorf was an asshole when referencing the slicing off of the top eight rows of the upper deck. Simply made the point that as a result of him doing so the ballpark's capacity was significantly reduced, to even less than that of Wrigley. So it's pretty pointless trying to compare the attendance of the two teams in 2006 when both teams were selling out almost every game, but one team has a bigger ballpark than the other. There. Those are my words, again, thank you very much. And oh, since you are the one who brought it up, Reinsdorf is the term YOU used due to the myriad bonehead and fan-unfriendly decisions he's made lo these past 36 years of his reign of terror.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 1, 2016 -> 06:03 PM) Here we go into the endless circle again, where I prove that even when they did, people still didn't show up nearly as much. Oh no? 1983 - White Sox first Chicago baseball team to draw two million fans. 2006 - Sox max out on season ticket packages, draw just short of three million with nearly 60 sell outs that season. Only the reduced capacity of the ballpark due to Reinsdorf lopping off the top eight rows of the upper deck a few seasons prior prevents the Sox from blowing attendance records out of the water that year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 1, 2016 -> 03:23 PM) Even when they have delivered a winner, fans didn't respond in the same way as Cub fans did. The difference wasn't Harry Carry, it was the fan bases. The Cubs fan base is more loyal. You mean those five times in the last 56 years? I'm sorry, what was that you were saying something about loyalty?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 1, 2016 -> 09:42 AM) Yeah, EVERYTHING OWNERSHIP DOES IS WRONG, EVEN WHEN IT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT! Two things: A.) Fans want a winner. In your opinion, how well has ownership done on delivering on that one and only request? B.) In your opinion, what has ownership done that is right that apparently the rest of us are not properly appreciating?

QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 03:30 PM) The Sox and Cubs were drawing roughly similar crowds form the mid '70s to early '80s. Caray made a difference for the Cubs because he was on national TV. At the same time, the Sox were on their pay network (and UHF directly before that, IIRC). I'm not arguing that Caray alone was the difference-maker - it was the combination of Caray and WGN's national audience that helped the Cubs before more popular at the time. (And, yes, the 1984 NLCS didn't hurt, either.) 100% correct. Thank you for correcting the revisionist history going on around this topic!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 30, 2016 -> 09:36 AM) You do realize when they did this, the Sox outdrew the Cubs. What happened was 1984. ....with Harry Caray promoting 1984 on WGN and turning the Cubs instantly into both a local and national sensation. Did that happen to Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn's White Sox after their 1983 season on SportsVision? No. Would it have happened if Harry was broadcasting the '83 season on WGN? You betcha. At least Harry thought so, and I agree with him.

QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Sep 29, 2016 -> 04:12 PM) I'd say that (1) is more correct, with the major caveat that the current ownership group's poor decision-making decades ago directly resulted in their current second-class status. Back in the early '80s, there was no clear-cut #1 baseball team in Chicago. Given Chicago's North Side/South Side baseball balkanization culture and modern society's downright slavish devotion to political parties, I think that the Sox front office gets a pass for not "converting" Cubs fans after winning the WS. Adults aren't going to switch their allegiance and their kids typically follow the team that their parents follow. Enter the "JR and Einhorn blunders" you mentioned earlier. They took the Sox off of superstation WGN and hid them away on the ill-fated SportsVision, while simultaneously allowing Harry Caray to go to the Cubs to become the rockstar he would become promoting them on WGN, and POOF! The Cubs were the clear-cut #1 team in Chicago by the mid '80s, and have been ever since.

QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 08:13 PM) Reinsdorf supposedly wanted Renteria to take over mid-season, but Renteria supposedly said that he didn't want to do that to Ventura. (That's a rumor that somebody posted here a day or two ago.) I agree that Reinsdorf giving his guys too much job security is a huge problem, but I think it's really cynical to say that Reinsdorf doesn't prioritize winning. The truth seems to be that he wants it both ways. That *can* work out (like in 2005), but ultimately creates problems. What can you point to that would remove this cynicism of which you speak that would demonstrate how Reinsdorf prioritizes winning?

QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 07:03 PM) I'm not sure that it's an accountability problem. I'd say the problem is Reinsdorf being unwilling to do a rebuild (full or partial) because of his age. Dude wants to win now and can't wait another four or five years to properly construct a winner. Detroit has the same problem with Mike Ilitch. So an entire fan base that some feel lack some perceived level of loyalty, is denied having the team do what they SHOULD do to "properly construct a winner" solely because of decisions the 80 year old owner is arguably recklessly making to accommodate his personal time line? What about that screams WRONG!

If the White Sox are not blaming Ventura for the past five seasons but rather "roster deficiencies", then I wonder when we can expect heads to roll in the FO?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 03:40 PM) I think the rule with the White Sox is that they always think they have a great team and they tell themselves they all did a great job up and down the list. So, when they don't win, it's not because the GM did a bad job, it's because no one could have foreseen Putnam and Petricka getting hurt - Kenny literally said that last month, that was what demolished their season. If you follow that logic, then no part of it is Robin's fault and they have a strategy that works, they're just one player away and they'll need to pay any price for that player this offseason. Again. "The White Sox refuse to blame Ventura for the losing records" seems to fit that model to me and no one in the organization will question that - if anyone were to admit that what they were doing wasn't working, then there might be consequences for that kind of failure. As long as everyone agrees it was just bad luck and no one could have prepared for the team being that unlucky, then no one will have to worry about wins and losses being used to evaluate their performance and everyone keeps cashing their checks. They ought to take a look at where they're at and turn it on its head and not think about where they were unlucky, but rather lucky, They were lucky - clearly - in the 23-10 start to the season. Those 33 games represent approximately 20% of the season. In the other 80%, all of the games since then, the Sox have played at a worse winning % than that of the team that lost 99 games in 2013. If that doesn't put this season into perspective, I don't know what will. Is that just being unlucky in these past 120+ games, with the real team being the good one from the first 33? Or were the Sox lucky in the 33, and are actually the bad team we've seen for the past four months? You decide. If they were somehow finishing the season on the high of going 23-10 in the final 33 games, maybe you could have optimism about the roster and its chances for next year. But that 23-10 record is from four months ago. It's old. The team hasn't played near that level ever since. And too many games have transpired since then to simply chalk the results up to bad luck. The Sox are faced with the same challenges as all of the other teams. Trying to wash away this season by blaming everything on a couple of injuries to some bullpen pitchers is not helpful. Taking a look in the mirror and admitting that the current strategy isn't working is what's needed badly at this point.

The more I read Nightengale's story, the more I think Ventura is NOT coming back. Focus on the two key phrases: he can "return if he wants" and "the White Sox refuse to blame Ventura for the losing records". I mean, what better way for Mr. Loyalty Program Owner to set the stage for a graceful exit of one his prized pups than this. Allowing Ventura to leave on his own terms without the shame of being fired, AND publicy declaring the team doesn't hold him accountable for the past five years of futility. Robin will sail off quietly into the sunset, and then that will be that.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 03:08 PM) Players you change. That is far more effective than swapping out a manager. Again, Joe Maddon, Mike Scoscia, whatever, with this roster, and how the injuries shook out, they all would be fools. Again, if the Sox were ever going to make a change, this seems like the time to do it. It just doesn't upset me that it appears they won't do it like it does most others. I'd rather have them blame players and change them. After these past five years, you do both. Change players and the manager.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Sep 28, 2016 -> 08:18 AM) If the Sox weren't willing to up the ante for Cespedes last offseason, why would they do it this year and give up the 12th pick in the draft to do so? It doesn't make sense. It's set up an interesting Catch-22 for the offseason. According to Hawk at the end of his last broadcast on Sunday, Mr. Reinsdorf expressed to him on a few recent occasions that he, meaning JR, "really, really, really wants to win next year". And so what does that mean to a team that for its final 80% of the season has played at a worse winning % than the team that lost 99 games in 2013? The answer ain't coming out of the minor leagues, as we all know. Maybe a couple of guys here in there on the pitching staff, but certainly nothing position player wise. So what do you do if your plan is to try and win next year? We shall soon see I guess in the ensuing months ahead!!

QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 07:54 PM) No, the market is going to be tight enough this winter that he'll command a lot more money than he's worth. JR isn't going to give him the $80M+ that he's going to get on the FA market. We need to shoot higher than him. We've been adding Josh Reddick types for a few years now and well, you've seen how that's worked out for us.

22 years now since the AL Central came into being. Division champions: Indians - 8 Twins - 6 Tigers - 4 Sox - 3 Royals - 1

QUOTE (Black_Jack29 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 05:15 PM) While I would also not be super-happy about the defensive downgrade of moving Eaton back to CF, the Sox need another high-OBP player more than they need Eaton if RF. Finding a CF who can hit and get on base with a .330+ OBP AND be a defensive upgrade to Eaton is going to be difficult. Especially considering that the Sox are probably not going to give out a $120M+ contract and currently aren't a popular destination for free agents. Also consider that most free agents don't want to DH... unless they're old, slow, and injury-prone like Morneau. If Hahn were able to convince somebody like Cespedes or Reddick to sign with the Sox, I doubt there's any way that either would agree to DH. A best-case scenario to address OF/DH for the Sox this offseason would probably be signing Reddick, moving Eaton back to CF, and convincing Morneau to sign a two-year deal to be our primary DH. I think that Reddick is pretty much a pipe dream, and my guess is that Morneau will end up paying for a team that's closer to winning a ring (e.g., Boston). Have things gotten that bad that acquiring Josh Reddick is considered a "pipe dream"?

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 03:13 PM) I've been following from afar. Have not been watching the product daily since the end of July, but will occasionally check in to see if anything interesting is going on. If anything, I've been closely eyeing the Twitterverse to see the latest in managerial rumors, white sox direction etc.. If the KW/Hahn two headed monster of dysfunction would have acquired young talent at the trade deadline, I would likely be watching everyday. Unfortunately, other than Rodon's progress or Anderson's play, there really isn't a whole lot to hang my hat onto. Although I am very doubtful KW/Hahn can turn this disaster around, I am very curious to see what on Earth their plan is this winter?!? Who will the next manager be? Will they stupidly sacrifice their first round draft choice for an aging free agent acquisition? Or do they simply plan on obtaining talent through trades? Is a rebuild really out of the question? If so then why? Their half-measured approach over the last 8 years has really sucked. The farm system is STILL in pretty poor shape and the main roster is not that good. Great questions, Great Scott! Looking forward to the answers to them myself!