Better Focus

upnorthsox · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 05:52 PM)

On the road:

Buehrle 2.63

Garcia 3.25

At home:

Buehrle: 5.02

Garcia: 5.37

Bring in Sheets, Mulder, Hudson, and Oswalt, and watch them suck it up in Comiskey. Seriously, we have more pertinent things to deal with than the actual players, y'all. And the fact that I rarely ever hear anything discussed on here about eradicating the friendly hitting conditions at home is both disturbing and depressing.

Basically, White Sox baseball in USCF at the current time is the equivalent of Arena League football. But when we go on the road (insert 'licking chops' smiley here), then we have our chance to shine.

Well there's no doubt the park played alot small last yr but I'm not convinced it wasn't an aberition.

Garland: 5.29 home ERA.

But take away his one game vs Philly with those hurricane style winds and his home ERA drops to 4.50.

Buerhle: 5.02 home ERA.

But again, 3 games: KC and NY in the first homestand(when the winds and weather were outrageous) and Philly with those winds, his home ERA is 4.10 in his 16 starts.

ELo: 5.94 ERA at the Cell.

But he also sucked on the road and at Yankee stadium(5.00 and 7.71 respectively), in fact, he just plain sucked, period.

Then there's the rookies Adkins, Cotts, Diaz, Rauch, Grilli, Baj, and Stewart who combined to go 142 IP and 92 ER for a combined 5.83 ERA. That's just too many youngsters and too many IP's. Sometimes you get exactly what you've paid for.

I still expect the park to play small but there's also a good chance it could play drastically different with different weather and different pitching.

hammerhead johnson · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (upnorthsox @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:22 PM)

Well there's no doubt the park played alot small last yr but I'm not convinced it wasn't an aberition.

Garland: 5.29 home ERA.

But take away his one game vs Philly with those hurricane style winds and his home ERA drops to 4.50.

Buerhle: 5.02 home ERA.

But again, 3 games: KC and NY in the first homestand(when the winds and weather were outrageous) and Philly with those winds, his home ERA is 4.10 in his 16 starts.

ELo: 5.94 ERA at the Cell.

But he also sucked on the road and at Yankee stadium(5.00 and 7.71 respectively), in fact, he just plain sucked, period.

Then there's the rookies Adkins, Cotts, Diaz, Rauch, Grilli, Baj, and Stewart who combined to go 142 IP and 92 ER for a combined 5.83 ERA. That's just too many youngsters and too many IP's. Sometimes you get exactly what you've paid for.

I still expect the park to play small but there's also a good chance it could play drastically different with different weather and different pitching.

I see where you're coming from, but every pitcher in baseball is going to have at least a handful of really bad starts. You can't just toss them aside. That's baseball.

And even without those terrible Buehrle starts, his ERA of 4.10 would still be way higher than his road ERA.

A 5.09 home ERA for the entire pitching staff on the season...those numbers do not lie. If not for Coors, we'd have been dead last in the majors.

Chisoxmatt · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (upnorthsox @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 01:22 PM)

Well there's no doubt the park played alot small last yr but I'm not convinced it wasn't an aberition.

Garland: 5.29 home ERA.

But take away his one game vs Philly with those hurricane style winds and his home ERA drops to 4.50.

Buerhle: 5.02 home ERA.

But again, 3 games: KC and NY in the first homestand(when the winds and weather were outrageous) and Philly with those winds, his home ERA is 4.10 in his 16 starts.

ELo: 5.94 ERA at the Cell.

But he also sucked on the road and at Yankee stadium(5.00 and 7.71 respectively), in fact, he just plain sucked, period.

Then there's the rookies Adkins, Cotts, Diaz, Rauch, Grilli, Baj, and Stewart who combined to go 142 IP and 92 ER for a combined 5.83 ERA. That's just too many youngsters and too many IP's. Sometimes you get exactly what you've paid for.

I still expect the park to play small but there's also a good chance it could play drastically different with different weather and different pitching.

Thats an interesting view but you cant just discount the games where it was windy. That is what it is like in Chicago. Thats why they call it the windy city. So it is doubtful the weather will be much different next year.

If you ask me, the dimensions of the park should have been made to compensate for the windy chicago weather.

January 1, 2005

QUOTE (Chisoxmatt @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:37 PM)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (upnorthsox @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 01:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well there's no doubt the park played alot small last yr but I'm not convinced it wasn't an aberition.

Thats why they call it the windy city.

I agree with the point made in your post, but wanted to point out the origin of the phrase Windy City.

It's not because of the wind, as is commonly assumed.

Back in the 1890's, Chicago politics were a national story ... lots of corruption issues, debates, and verbal mud slinging. Also during the same era, Chicago began to host many national political conventions. Suffice it to say Chicago politicians were frequently quoted, for better or worse.

The New York press, commenting on the overall situation, dubbed Chicago the Windy City, in reference to all the "hot air" eminating from Chicago bigwigs. Right about that time, Chicago was in the national spotlight due to the 1893 World's Fair, and the nickname stuck.

Chisoxmatt · January 1, 2005

either way... its very windy at times.

hammerhead johnson · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (JimH @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:54 PM)

I agree with the point made in your post, but wanted to point out the origin of the phrase Windy City.

It's not because of the wind, as is commonly assumed.

Back in the 1890's, Chicago politics were a national story ... lots of corruption issues, debates, and verbal mud slinging. Also during the same era, Chicago began to host many national political conventions. Suffice it to say Chicago politicians were frequently quoted, for better or worse.

The New York press, commenting on the overall situation, dubbed Chicago the Windy City, in reference to all the "hot air" eminating from Chicago bigwigs. Right about that time, Chicago was in the national spotlight due to the 1893 World's Fair, and the nickname stuck.

I remember learning this back in high school and I was like :huh:

upnorthsox · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:36 PM)

QUOTE (upnorthsox @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:22 PM)

Well there's no doubt the park played alot small last yr but I'm not convinced it wasn't an aberition.

Garland: 5.29 home ERA.

But take away his one game vs Philly with those hurricane style winds and his home ERA drops to 4.50.

Buerhle: 5.02 home ERA.

But again, 3 games: KC and NY in the first homestand(when the winds and weather were outrageous) and Philly with those winds, his home ERA is 4.10 in his 16 starts.

ELo: 5.94 ERA at the Cell.

But he also sucked on the road and at Yankee stadium(5.00 and 7.71 respectively), in fact, he just plain sucked, period.

Then there's the rookies Adkins, Cotts, Diaz, Rauch, Grilli, Baj, and Stewart who combined to go 142 IP and 92 ER for a combined 5.83 ERA. That's just too many youngsters and too many IP's. Sometimes you get exactly what you've paid for.

I still expect the park to play small but there's also a good chance it could play drastically different with different weather and different pitching.

I see where you're coming from, but every pitcher in baseball is going to have at least a handful of really bad starts. You can't just toss them aside. That's baseball.

And even without those terrible Buehrle starts, his ERA of 4.10 would still be way higher than his road ERA.

A 5.09 home ERA for the entire pitching staff on the season...those numbers do not lie. If not for Coors, we'd have been dead last in the majors.

True you can't just throw out games when you're talking about a pitchers season(though you sure can acknowledge it) but we're not talking about pitchers per se we are talking about a stadium and how that stadium is playing and the conditions such as weather in a handful of games and an over reliance on lousy and rookie pitchers by the home team is as much a conditional factor as the configuration of the fences or UD rooflines.

January 1, 2005

Something I learned in high school about the White Sox ...

If you park in Lot E at U.S. Cellular which is basically behind right field, look directly east and you'll see Wentworth Gardens housing development, which is low income subsidized housing.

Wentworth Gardens is the former site of 39th Street Grounds, which was the predecessor of original Comiskey Park. The White Sox played there from 1900 to 1910, and it is there where the Sox defeated the Cubs in the 1906 World Series.

37th Street dead ends at Wentworth Gardens, in between Parking Lot E and F. Where 37th St. dead ends is roughly the site of where 3rd base used to be.

After the Sox moved to Comiskey Park in 1910, South Side Grounds was used for Negro League games and various other school and independent leagues. I'm told there was a fire there which damaged part of the park in 1948 or so, and it was torn down at that time for Wentworth Gardens.

Just in case anyone cares about history stuff like that. :lol:

CWSGuy406 · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (Jeckle2000 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:33 AM)

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:19 AM)

It's amusing to me that Sox management decides that a power filled lineup doesnt work and we need a new direction , when clearly, if we had a better pitching staff all along we would've competed. Saying the power lineup got us nowhere is just managements attempt to redirect the blame away from themselves for not getting the Sox better pitching.

I don't agree with that at all. The chubbies (who supposedly have the best rotation in baseball) lost because they have a lineup that was too full of power and less able to create runs. Yes the 5th starter was a problem but it was by no means the only problem. This team wasn't going anywhere scoring 7 runs one game and then 2 the next three.

The Cubs lost because they had s*** in their bullpen, not because of their lineup...

Rowand44 · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (CWSGuy406 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:17 PM)

QUOTE (Jeckle2000 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:33 AM)

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:19 AM)

It's amusing to me that Sox management decides that a power filled lineup doesnt work and we need a new direction , when clearly, if we had a better pitching staff all along we would've competed. Saying the power lineup got us nowhere is just managements attempt to redirect the blame away from themselves for not getting the Sox better pitching.

I don't agree with that at all. The chubbies (who supposedly have the best rotation in baseball) lost because they have a lineup that was too full of power and less able to create runs. Yes the 5th starter was a problem but it was by no means the only problem. This team wasn't going anywhere scoring 7 runs one game and then 2 the next three.

The Cubs lost because they had s*** in their bullpen, not because of their lineup...

They lost because of both. Their lineup pulled the same s*** that the sox has for the last couple of seasons. The cubs lineup last year was very simliar to the lineup the sox have had for the past couple of seasons.

CWSGuy406 · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 08:25 PM)

QUOTE (CWSGuy406 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:17 PM)

QUOTE (Jeckle2000 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:33 AM)

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:19 AM)

It's amusing to me that Sox management decides that a power filled lineup doesnt work and we need a new direction , when clearly, if we had a better pitching staff all along we would've competed. Saying the power lineup got us nowhere is just managements attempt to redirect the blame away from themselves for not getting the Sox better pitching.

I don't agree with that at all. The chubbies (who supposedly have the best rotation in baseball) lost because they have a lineup that was too full of power and less able to create runs. Yes the 5th starter was a problem but it was by no means the only problem. This team wasn't going anywhere scoring 7 runs one game and then 2 the next three.

The Cubs lost because they had s*** in their bullpen, not because of their lineup...

They lost because of both. Their lineup pulled the same s*** that the sox has for the last couple of seasons. The cubs lineup last year was very simliar to the lineup the sox have had for the past couple of seasons.

I dunno, I think the whole 'inconsistency' thing is a little bit overblown, but that's just me. I think Jackie hayes did a research thing on it (didn't know what else to call it), and really, our offense wasn't as consistent as people said it was.

You cannot tell me, that had the Sox not had a capable fifth starter in 2003, that they would not have made the playoffs. Same goes for last year, but to a lesser extent -- obviously, even with an El Duque at the back of the rotation last season, it still would have been tough without Magglio and Big Hurt.

Ahh.... 2003. The year that could have/should have been... :crying

Rowand44 · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (CWSGuy406 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:30 PM)

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 08:25 PM)

QUOTE (CWSGuy406 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:17 PM)

QUOTE (Jeckle2000 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:33 AM)

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:19 AM)

It's amusing to me that Sox management decides that a power filled lineup doesnt work and we need a new direction , when clearly, if we had a better pitching staff all along we would've competed. Saying the power lineup got us nowhere is just managements attempt to redirect the blame away from themselves for not getting the Sox better pitching.

I don't agree with that at all. The chubbies (who supposedly have the best rotation in baseball) lost because they have a lineup that was too full of power and less able to create runs. Yes the 5th starter was a problem but it was by no means the only problem. This team wasn't going anywhere scoring 7 runs one game and then 2 the next three.

The Cubs lost because they had s*** in their bullpen, not because of their lineup...

They lost because of both. Their lineup pulled the same s*** that the sox has for the last couple of seasons. The cubs lineup last year was very simliar to the lineup the sox have had for the past couple of seasons.

I dunno, I think the whole 'inconsistency' thing is a little bit overblown, but that's just me. I think Jackie hayes did a research thing on it (didn't know what else to call it), and really, our offense wasn't as consistent as people said it was.

You cannot tell me, that had the Sox not had a capable fifth starter in 2003, that they would not have made the playoffs. Same goes for last year, but to a lesser extent -- obviously, even with an El Duque at the back of the rotation last season, it still would have been tough without Magglio and Big Hurt.

Ahh.... 2003. The year that could have/should have been... :crying

Keith, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one and please don't mention 03 :crying

Texsox · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (JimH @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 03:10 PM)

Something I learned in high school about the White Sox ...

If you park in Lot E at U.S. Cellular which is basically behind right field, look directly east and you'll see Wentworth Gardens housing development, which is low income subsidized housing.

Wentworth Gardens is the former site of 39th Street Grounds, which was the predecessor of original Comiskey Park. The White Sox played there from 1900 to 1910, and it is there where the Sox defeated the Cubs in the 1906 World Series.

37th Street dead ends at Wentworth Gardens, in between Parking Lot E and F. Where 37th St. dead ends is roughly the site of where 3rd base used to be.

After the Sox moved to Comiskey Park in 1910, South Side Grounds was used for Negro League games and various other school and independent leagues. I'm told there was a fire there which damaged part of the park in 1948 or so, and it was torn down at that time for Wentworth Gardens.

Just in case anyone cares about history stuff like that. :lol:

Thank you. I was stumbled across an article on the history of ballparks in Chicago. It was really interesting, especially the Negro League fields.

upnorthsox · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 08:25 PM)

QUOTE (CWSGuy406 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:17 PM)

QUOTE (Jeckle2000 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:33 AM)

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:19 AM)

It's amusing to me that Sox management decides that a power filled lineup doesnt work and we need a new direction , when clearly, if we had a better pitching staff all along we would've competed. Saying the power lineup got us nowhere is just managements attempt to redirect the blame away from themselves for not getting the Sox better pitching.

I don't agree with that at all. The chubbies (who supposedly have the best rotation in baseball) lost because they have a lineup that was too full of power and less able to create runs. Yes the 5th starter was a problem but it was by no means the only problem. This team wasn't going anywhere scoring 7 runs one game and then 2 the next three.

The Cubs lost because they had s*** in their bullpen, not because of their lineup...

They lost because of both. Their lineup pulled the same s*** that the sox has for the last couple of seasons. The cubs lineup last year was very simliar to the lineup the sox have had for the past couple of seasons.

But they were just 7 outs away from the WS with that kind of lineup too.

Btw, they also lost 25 starts from their #1 and 2 pitchers due to injuries.

Rowand44 · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (upnorthsox @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:35 PM)

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 08:25 PM)

QUOTE (CWSGuy406 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:17 PM)

QUOTE (Jeckle2000 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:33 AM)

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 07:19 AM)

It's amusing to me that Sox management decides that a power filled lineup doesnt work and we need a new direction , when clearly, if we had a better pitching staff all along we would've competed. Saying the power lineup got us nowhere is just managements attempt to redirect the blame away from themselves for not getting the Sox better pitching.

I don't agree with that at all. The chubbies (who supposedly have the best rotation in baseball) lost because they have a lineup that was too full of power and less able to create runs. Yes the 5th starter was a problem but it was by no means the only problem. This team wasn't going anywhere scoring 7 runs one game and then 2 the next three.

The Cubs lost because they had s*** in their bullpen, not because of their lineup...

They lost because of both. Their lineup pulled the same s*** that the sox has for the last couple of seasons. The cubs lineup last year was very simliar to the lineup the sox have had for the past couple of seasons.

But they were just 7 outs away from the WS with that kind of lineup too.

Btw, they also lost 25 starts from their #1 and 2 pitchers due to injuries.

Not true, they had Kenny Lofton, they had a real leadoff guy. If you're going to ask me if I think Lofton made that big of a difference, yes I do, he was there offense in the playoffs that year.

Chisoxmatt · January 1, 2005

What the hell is up with the quotes? this has been happening lately.

Rowand44 · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (Chisoxmatt @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:40 PM)

What the hell is up with the quotes? this has been happening lately.

I'm assuming it has something to do with the board upgrade :huh

CWSGuy406 · January 1, 2005

Still...

If Prior and Wood are healthy the whole season last year, they make the playoffs.

If they have one guy -- one guy -- worth a damn in that bullpen last year (coupled with a healthy Prior and Wood), they might make the Series last season.

Latroy Hawkins... :lol: Just remembering that CLee shot off of Hawkins in the ninth, a knife in the heart of every Cub fan. What a great moment (only to be offset by Marte walking in the winning run the following inning).

southsider2k5 · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:41 PM)

QUOTE (Chisoxmatt @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:40 PM)

What the hell is up with the quotes? this has been happening lately.

I'm assuming it has something to do with the board upgrade :huh

Yeah, they are in the process of upgrading to 2.0 as we speak.

Rowand44 · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:43 PM)

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:41 PM)

QUOTE (Chisoxmatt @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:40 PM)

What the hell is up with the quotes? this has been happening lately.

I'm assuming it has something to do with the board upgrade :huh

Yeah, they are in the process of upgrading to 2.0 as we speak.

Got your named changed pretty quickly

southsider2k5 · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:45 PM)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:43 PM)

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:41 PM)

QUOTE (Chisoxmatt @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 02:40 PM)

What the hell is up with the quotes? this has been happening lately.

I'm assuming it has something to do with the board upgrade :huh

Yeah, they are in the process of upgrading to 2.0 as we speak.

Got your named changed pretty quickly

And I didn't even have to do it this year :lol:

hammerhead johnson · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (upnorthsox @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 08:03 PM)

True you can't just throw out games when you're talking about a pitchers season(though you sure can acknowledge it) but we're not talking about pitchers per se we are talking about a stadium and how that stadium is playing and the conditions such as weather in a handful of games and an over reliance on lousy and rookie pitchers by the home team is as much a conditional factor as the configuration of the fences or UD rooflines.

True, but there is nothing that you can do about the weather. Unless you have a dome, there are going to be days when the wind is excessive. Can you configure your park to minimize the effect that wind will have on a particular game? Absolutely.

And every team in baseball outside of the Yankees has to fill in pitching staff gaps with rookies or potential scrubs. As the league has expanded and the injury rate for pitchers has increased, it's become that much more common.

upnorthsox · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (hammerhead johnson @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 08:50 PM)

QUOTE (upnorthsox @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 08:03 PM)

True you can't just throw out games when you're talking about a pitchers season(though you sure can acknowledge it) but we're not talking about pitchers per se we are talking about a stadium and how that stadium is playing and the conditions such as weather in a handful of games and an over reliance on lousy and rookie pitchers by the home team is as much a conditional factor as the configuration of the fences or UD rooflines.

True, but there is nothing that you can do about the weather. Unless you have a dome, there are going to be days when the wind is excessive. Can you configure your park to minimize the effect that wind will have on a particular game? Absolutely.

And every team in baseball outside of the Yankees has to fill in pitching staff gaps with rookies or potential scrubs. As the league has expanded and the injury rate for pitchers has increased, it's become that much more common.

Hhhmmm....... Ok so you say I can't one game out of many for a pitcher as representative of him but you can take one season at a stadium out of many and declare it Coor's East........

hammerhead johnson · January 1, 2005

QUOTE (upnorthsox @ Jan 1, 2005 -> 09:06 PM)

Hhhmmm....... Ok so you say I can't one game out of many for a pitcher as representative of him but you can take one season at a stadium out of many and declare it Coor's East........

I dunno if I understand what you're saying here. Back to my original post:

Road

Buehrle 2.63

Garcia 3.25

Home

Buehrle 5.02

Garcia 5.37

I'd have to assume that the average Sox fan would cringe when presented with these numbers for the first time. Obviously, Comiskey needs a major facelift. Or we could just blow it off the map. I'll pitch in for dynamite.

Heads22 · January 1, 2005

With our top 2 pitching dynomite on the road....what was our home/away record?

Better Focus

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest JimH

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest JimH

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members