Dick Allen Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Do you know how small a difference the White Sox and Cleveland's records really are? If the Sox didn't have that incredible comeback with the homeruns of Wickman early in the season, and if the Tribe just split that 4 game series in Jacobs Field instead of being swept, the Sox would own a .5 game lead at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSoxLova6 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 they just better kick ass in september.. none of this losing record month again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxmanager Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 05:21 PM) My negativity is completely justified. This team hasn't done s*** in my lifetime, or yours. The last time we were in the playoffs we got disgraced. Last WS in 1917, throwing one more recently. Last appearance in 1959, and we haven't even won a playoff series in the lifetimes of the majority of this board's members. Yet we're going to depend on a spark from some overhyped minor leaguers and then some other minor leaguers that are garbage? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you are like me then you certainly feel like the strike years were WS that we could've won? You are also failing to mention that as soon as the SOX are out of the playoff chase we become an unbeatable team and run off consecutive wins like no other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(whitesoxmanager @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:38 PM) If you are like me then you certainly feel like the strike years were WS that we could've won? You are also failing to mention that as soon as the SOX are out of the playoff chase we become an unbeatable team and run off consecutive wins like no other. I'm sure the Expos would've beaten us even then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 So what Sanders ahead of Diaz and Munoz and Casanova ahead of Burke? Ugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:43 PM) So what Sanders ahead of Diaz and Munoz and Casanova ahead of Burke? Ugh. Can those that follow the minors give any sort of valid and/or logical reasoning for these moves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Um.....not really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Do you know how small a difference the White Sox and Cleveland's records really are? If the Sox didn't have that incredible comeback with the homeruns of Wickman early in the season, and if the Tribe just split that 4 game series in Jacobs Field instead of being swept, the Sox would own a .5 game lead at the moment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah but that didn't happen. Numbers can be massaged any way we want. The division will be won head to head, just like it is every single year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Sep 1, 2005 -> 11:53 AM) Can those that follow the minors give any sort of valid and/or logical reasoning for these moves? I can't. At least Arnie and Felix had success in September last season. Sanders is just well, a poor man's Kevin Walker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:32 PM) Do you know how small a difference the White Sox and Cleveland's records really are? If the Sox didn't have that incredible comeback with the homeruns of Wickman early in the season, and if the Tribe just split that 4 game series in Jacobs Field instead of being swept, the Sox would own a .5 game lead at the moment. And if Vizcaino didn't give up 6 runs in the 11th against Cleveland the lead would be more. And if we didn't lose by 2 on June 5th it would be even more. What exactly is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(JimH @ Sep 1, 2005 -> 01:58 AM) Yeah but that didn't happen. Numbers can be massaged any way we want. The division will be won head to head, just like it is every single year. Yep, they all count as a W or L in the standings. There have been a lot of "if this, then this" that have happened for the Sox. For the most part, it's all been positive. We could easily be like 3-10 vs KC this year....but no one mentions something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:01 PM) And if Vizcaino didn't give up 6 runs in the 11th against Cleveland the lead would be more. And if we didn't lose by 2 on June 5th it would be even more. What exactly is your point? My point is the difference in performance between the 2 teams is very small. BTW Vizcaino wouldn't have given up 6 if Ozzie didn't make him the sacrificial lamb that day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHarris1 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 09:05 PM) My point is the difference in performance between the 2 teams is very small. BTW Vizcaino wouldn't have given up 6 if Ozzie didn't make him the sacrificial lamb that day. BTW the Indians would have split the 4 game set if they played better... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepyWhiteSox Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 09:03 PM) Yep, they all count as a W or L in the standings. There have been a lot of "if this, then this" that have happened for the Sox. For the most part, it's all been positive. We could easily be like 3-10 vs KC this year....but no one mentions something like that. We coulda been undefeated this season if... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Sep 1, 2005 -> 02:07 AM) We coulda been undefeated this season if... Most people probably think that I believe we'd be undefeated if Ozzie managed better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:07 PM) BTW the Indians would have split the 4 game set if they played better... quit picking on me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:05 PM) My point is the difference in performance between the 2 teams is very small. BTW Vizcaino wouldn't have given up 6 if Ozzie didn't make him the sacrificial lamb that day. Ok, so you take two division teams that are 7 games apart and you can make the same comparisons. Pretty out there argument, what if what if what if. It didn't happen so it doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Jaime Burke can hit, at least no worse than half of today's lineup. He also can play a few positions. Raul Cassanova will start tomorrow or Sunday (I am only somewhat joking). Although not a fan of Adkins, with another lefty in the pen, lord help us. I remember Kevin Walker all to well. Guillen and this organization look really lost right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:10 PM) Ok, so you take two division teams that are 7 games apart and you can make the same comparisons. Pretty out there argument, what if what if what if. It didn't happen so it doesn't matter. Of course it doesn't matter. It goes to show you how important every game is, especially head to head. That's why you shouldn't just piss them away. The Sunday line-up should be disbanded until the division is clinched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Sep 1, 2005 -> 02:12 AM) The Sunday line-up should be disbanded until the division is clinched. No kidding. And if ONE player needs a rest, that's fine...sit him that day. But no more lineups with 3 starters on the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:12 PM) Of course it doesn't matter. It goes to show you how important every game is, especially head to head. That's why you shouldn't just piss them away. The Sunday line-up should be disbanded until the division is clinched. or at least until Sunday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:13 PM) No kidding. And if ONE player needs a rest, that's fine...sit him that day. But no more lineups with 3 starters on the bench. This I do agree with. I can definitely understand giving Scotty a day off today but Gooch got a game off yesterday, Carl is a dh and he rarely needs a day off. There wasn't really a reason to give those two the day off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 So what Sanders ahead of Diaz and Munoz and Casanova ahead of Burke? Ugh. QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Sep 1, 2005 -> 01:53 AM) Can those that follow the minors give any sort of valid and/or logical reasoning for these moves? Perhaps I'll take a stab at it. Sanders has an ERA of 3.02 and has been a key lefty out of the bullpen in Charlotte. Diaz has an ERA of 4.95 and has been very inconsistent this year. Munoz has really struggled lately, including tonight. Perhaps they feel Casanova is a better defensive catcher than Burke?? Burke only played 46 of his 96 games this year at catcher, so it seems obvious to me they don't really see him as a catcher, but more as a utility player that can catch. Note he played most of those games at catcher while Casanova was hurt. Then again, perhaps it is simply because Casanova is hitting .314 with 7 HR and 18 RBI in the month of August while Burke is hitting .244? While I don't always agree with Sox personnel decisions, why is it so necessary to criticize decisions made with input from coaches who see these players daily? I personally don't have a feel for Casanova, but I do know that Sanders is tough against lefties, as evidenced by his 2.45 ERA and .216 BA against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:17 PM) Perhaps I'll take a stab at it. Sanders has an ERA of 3.02 and has been a key lefty out of the bullpen in Charlotte. Diaz has an ERA of 4.95 and has been very inconsistent this year. Munoz has really struggled lately, including tonight. Perhaps they feel Casanova is a better defensive catcher than Burke?? Burke only played 46 of his 96 games this year at catcher, so it seems obvious to me they don't really see him as a catcher, but more as a utility player that can catch. Note he played most of those games at catcher while Casanova was hurt. Then again, perhaps it is simply because Casanova is hitting .314 with 7 HR and 18 RBI in the month of August while Burke is hitting .244? While I don't always agree with Sox personnel decisions, why is it so necessary to criticize decisions made with input from coaches who see these players daily? I personally don't have a feel for Casanova, but I do know that Sanders is tough against lefties, as evidenced by his 2.45 ERA and .216 BA against them. Good post, thanks for that info rex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Aug 31, 2005 -> 08:17 PM) Perhaps I'll take a stab at it. Sanders has an ERA of 3.02 and has been a key lefty out of the bullpen in Charlotte. Diaz has an ERA of 4.95 and has been very inconsistent this year. Munoz has really struggled lately, including tonight. Perhaps they feel Casanova is a better defensive catcher than Burke?? Burke only played 46 of his 96 games this year at catcher, so it seems obvious to me they don't really see him as a catcher, but more as a utility player that can catch. Note he played most of those games at catcher while Casanova was hurt. Then again, perhaps it is simply because Casanova is hitting .314 with 7 HR and 18 RBI in the month of August while Burke is hitting .244? While I don't always agree with Sox personnel decisions, why is it so necessary to criticize decisions made with input from coaches who see these players daily? I personally don't have a feel for Casanova, but I do know that Sanders is tough against lefties, as evidenced by his 2.45 ERA and .216 BA against them. I thought the big league staff liked Burke defensively behind the plate last season. Maybe he has dropped off, or maybe they just feel Cassanova has passed him up. 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.