Antonio Osuna Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 (edited) In theory, people right now should be making a lot of comparisons between the 2000 and 2005 White Sox. After all, both seemed to be chemistry-based ballclubs that won a whole lot of games and established rather sizable leads in the AL Central Division. This is also seen as a warning: the 2005 might, after all, fall apart just as the 2000 team did in the playoffs, its "chemistry" ripped apart by actual well-paid talent. I was bored today, so I looked up some stats. Please enjoy this list of some famous 2000 White Sox and their 2000 and career averages: Ray Durham: 2000: .280; Career: .279 Jose Valentin: 2000: .273; Career: .243 Frank Thomas: 2000: .328; Career: .308 Magglio Ordonez: 2000: .315; Career: .307 Paul Konerko: 2000: .298; Career: .277 Carlos Lee: 2000: .301; Career: .288 Chris Singleton: 2000: .254; Career: .273 Herbert Perry: 2000: .308; Career: .272 Brook Fordyce: 2000: .272; Career: .258 Charles Johnson: 2000: .326; Career: .246 Please note that if a player spent 2000 with different teams (like Charles Johnson or the Milkman), I am giving their White Sox stats only. As you can see, most guys hit 10-20 points above their career average, with only Ray Durham having an average season and only Chris Singleton having an off-year. This backs up the common assertion that 2000 was just everyone on the team having a simultaneous career year Scott Podsednik: 2005: .299; Career: .275 Tadahito Iguchi: n/a Frank Thomas: 2005: .227; Career: .308 Carl Everett: 2005: .273; Career: .277 Paul Konerko: 2005: .256; Career: .277 Jermaine Dye: 2005: .263; Career: .272 Aaron Rowand: 2005: .289; Career: .290 AJ Pierzynski: 2005: .246; Career: .294 Joe Crede: 2005: .241; Career: .256 Juan Uribe: 2005: .233; Career: .266 The only guy playing above his head right now is Scott Podsednik; Rowand, Everett, and to a lesser extent Dye are all just below their average, but Thomas, Konerko, Crede, Uribe, and especially AJ Pierzynski are all dramatically below their historic average. While this could mean that they have declined in talent, it could also mean that they might return to their typical form in the second half of the season. So, no, it doesn't seem like the 2005 team is comparable to the 2000 team in terms of being successful because of a plethora of simultaneous career years. Indeed, our offense is in nothing short of a prolonged slump. Now, if you know me, you'll know that one thing I can't stand is unjustified optimism; I think it is absolutely unbecoming of Sox fans and makes us sound like those "This is our year" folks on the other side of town. But, given the above, I think it can be said with some justification that the offensive production of this ballclub will increase rather than decrease when we get into the second half. That is, if we lose this division, it will not be for want of offense. Rather, it will be for want of pitching. One thing that this ballclub -does- share with the 2000 team is the fact that much of the pitching is having a career year; Garland and the bullpen come to mind, and I believe Buerhle is doing a tad better than he typically does. Also notable is that the pitching is starting to break down; el duque and Contreras are giving up a ton of runs, Hermanson is out, etc. If this trend continues, by the end of the season we may resemble the common White Sox team of 2001-2004; scoring lots of runs, but giving up more. Edited July 19, 2005 by Antonio Osuna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Let me insert something you forgot. A MAJOR difference between the two teams is the pitching. I disagre that a lot of our pitchers are having "career" years. Mark and Freddy are solid vets who in line with their career numbers. Jon is at an age when the majority of pitchers mature to their talents. In 2000, our pitching got HURT. We went into the postseason with no healthy starters. Our opening game was pitched by Jim "5 Inning" Parque. Our offense in 2000 was all or nothing, just like the last few years. They were too reliant on the 3-run homer. This year is different. I don't think people realize that enough. Faster, Smarter, Stellar Defense... They are completely two different teams. Just comparing batting averages does not paint a complete picture. Optimism is called for...not pessimism Now, if you know me, you'll know that one thing I can't stand is unjustified optimism; I think it is absolutely unbecoming of Sox fans and makes us sound like those "This is our year" folks on the other side of town. I don't understand that statement AT ALL. Our optimism is INCREDIBLY justified. After all the games I've gone too, the amazing comebacks I've witnessed, different heroes every night...Yeah...it's OK to think this is our year! Go ahead...refer to my opinion and enthusiasm like I am a Cub fan. I refuse NOT to enjoy this magical season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jul 19, 2005 -> 05:36 PM) Let me insert something you forgot. A MAJOR difference between the two teams is the pitching. I disagre that a lot of our pitchers are having "career" years. Mark and Freddy are solid vets who in line with their career numbers. Jon is at an age when the majority of pitchers mature to their talents. In 2000, our pitching got HURT. We went into the postseason with no healthy starters. Our opening game was pitched by Jim "5 Inning" Parque. Our offense in 2000 was all or nothing, just like the last few years. They were too reliant on the 3-run homer. This year is different. I don't think people realize that enough. Faster, Smarter, Stellar Defense... They are completely two different teams. Just comparing batting averages does not paint a complete picture. Optimism is called for...not pessimism I don't understand that statement AT ALL. Our optimism is INCREDIBLY justified. After all the games I've gone too, the amazing comebacks I've witnessed, different heroes every night...Yeah...it's OK to think this is our year! Go ahead...refer to my opinion and enthusiasm like I am a Cub fan. I refuse NOT to enjoy this magical season. I agree. Our starting rotation isn't made up of guys having career years IMHO. Our defense is good. Our offense could be better. That's the only thing that scares me. That was the real problem in the playoffs. Our offense sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnB Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Jul 19, 2005 -> 06:52 PM) This just goes back to a post I made a few weeks ago. People just can't seem to get over the hump and beleive in this team. They can't do anything else. You can say win in the playoffs, but obviously that is not in the Sox power right now, we just have to wait and see when the time comes how they do. But as of right now, just enjoy this season, I don't understand how you couldnt. ^ some people are just afraid of getting let down i guess. I've had a terrible summer and the sox are really helping brighten it up. This team is fun, period. That being said, i'm anxious for fall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 In 2000 Sox sit on there ass at deadline, 2005 they better go for it, best record in baseball at playoff time to lose 3 in a row does not mean a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 The rotation is having career years? Bull. Buehrle and Garcia have both shown in the past that they are capable of performing just as well as they are now. Garland has reached the level that has been expected for the past couple of years. Whether or not it's a career year remains to be seen, but I'd look for a few more of these from Jon before he's done. Then to say Contreras and Hernandez are having career years ... well ... there's just no reasonable response to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 QUOTE(Soxfest @ Jul 19, 2005 -> 06:28 PM) In 2000 Sox sit on there ass at deadline, 2005 they better go for it, best record in baseball at playoff time to lose 3 in a row does not mean a thing. They picked up Charles Johnson and Harold Baines at the deadline. No pitching though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upnorthsox Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) Our offense in 2000 was all or nothing, just like the last few years. They were too reliant on the 3-run homer I've gotta disagree with this, we were much more a rallyball/hit parade type O. Sure we could hit the 3-run HR with anyone but we were much more than that. The telling stat that yr was how many times we hit around in an inning and it seemed like it was around once every 3 games. The problem as you so appropriately pointed out was the pitching, going into the playoffs our rotation was a shambles and the pen was inexperienced and burned out. Criste our "Ace" Sirotka as late as the end of August was 10-10 and a career .500 pitcher til he went on a baby 5 game win streak to close out the season(and his career). The problem with our O was they were too damm young and inexperienced and on top of that they were expected to carry a pitching staff held together with duct tape and 5 inch screws(I still can't believe Schu actually thought Cal would be back for the playoffs). It also didn't help that our lone big Vet went and got himself in a funk futily chasing a HR title. In the end though Seattles' BP was better than our BP just like in the end the NYYs BP was better than Seattles' and the Mets. Edited July 20, 2005 by upnorthsox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox91403 Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 QUOTE(Soxfest @ Jul 19, 2005 -> 06:28 PM) In 2000 Sox sit on there ass at deadline, 2005 they better go for it, best record in baseball at playoff time to lose 3 in a row does not mean a thing. I disagree. KW should go out and get anther reliable bullpen arm and that's it. Do not mess with this team at all. They do not need a superstar to come in and get them over the hump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABearSoX Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) Damnit can someone just find Christopher Llyod and go get the Sports Almanac....... Edited July 20, 2005 by DABearSoX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 QUOTE(DABearSoX @ Jul 20, 2005 -> 09:18 AM) Damnit can someone just find Christopher Llyod and go get the Sports Almanac....... Sigh.. if only our Delorian wasn't in the shop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 This team's light years better then the 2000 team and I'm not trying to knock that team. That was also a fun year but overall they have nothing on the 05 team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 20, 2005 -> 08:21 AM) Sigh.. if only our Delorian wasn't in the shop. Damn...Cause my Flux Capacitor is...Fluxing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 that 2000 team was the real deal. If there pitching wouldve stayed healthy, we wouldve had a nice run in the playoffs. This year we stay healthy and win that goofy ass trophy you get when you win the world series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Jul 20, 2005 -> 10:56 AM) that 2000 team was the real deal. If there pitching wouldve stayed healthy, we wouldve had a nice run in the playoffs. This year we stay healthy and win that goofy ass trophy you get when you win the world series. Hu...??? The offense wet itself from the get go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 20, 2005 -> 09:57 AM) Hu...??? The offense wet itself from the get go. Or did you just spit coffee in their laps?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Jul 20, 2005 -> 10:59 AM) Or did you just spit coffee in their laps?? Who you been talking to... ?? p.s... I don't spit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 20, 2005 -> 10:57 AM) Hu...??? The offense wet itself from the get go. The 2000 team was a flash in the pan. Though I hoped for a miracle, I knew that team wasn't going to do s*** in the playoffs. They played at about .500 for the last 6 weeks or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RibbieRubarb Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 20, 2005 -> 10:00 AM) Who you been talking to... ?? p.s... I don't spit. Should I feel: or Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.