Dare I say

[Soxfest]

The White Sox' 10-1 record thus far is a bit overinflated IMO

 

1) all of the teams they faced could not set their rotation

2) Colon was out for the CS, Rocket only lasted three innings, we didn't even face Schilling

3) All of the teams, overall, were among the weakest set of opponents an eventual recent WS winner would face in my opinion. None of these teams are the 2001 or 2003 Yankees, who would've taken us deep and probably beat this team in the CS.

 

 

Too bad people are hurt, go long in series, Sox have a guy named F.Thomas not playing either, Sox are up 3-0 in World Series, people remember champ NOT who or why they beat an opponent.

[BigEdWalsh]

We roughed up Roger Clemens, who many have called the best pitcher of all time, we managed a win in a game that Andy Pettitte, who is one of the better post season pitchers ever, started, and we roughed up (and should have beat if not for a bad homerun call) Roy Oswalt, a guy who has won 20 the last two seasons. We're not exactly beating the little sisters of the poor here.

 

Yes, historically we're not one of the great teams, but I've seen weaker teams win titles.

Right on, dude.

For someone to suggest that the Sox have won (and won and won and won and...) only because of facing weakened opponents or lucking out not having to face a guy at his best or even because of benefiting from umpires calls is total bulls***. Sure, the White Sox may not be the best team ever but come on they're doing everything right and are clearly damn good.

[The Ginger Kid]

The White Sox' 10-1 record thus far is a bit overinflated IMO

 

1) all of the teams they faced could not set their rotation

2) Colon was out for the CS, Rocket only lasted three innings, we didn't even face Schilling

3) All of the teams, overall, were among the weakest set of opponents an eventual recent WS winner would face in my opinion. None of these teams are the 2001 or 2003 Yankees, who would've taken us deep and probably beat this team in the CS.

Someone's got a Jeff Brantley rookie card in their closet.

[Felix]

The White Sox' 10-1 record thus far is a bit overinflated IMO

 

1) all of the teams they faced could not set their rotation

2) Colon was out for the CS, Rocket only lasted three innings, we didn't even face Schilling

3) All of the teams, overall, were among the weakest set of opponents an eventual recent WS winner would face in my opinion. None of these teams are the 2001 or 2003 Yankees, who would've taken us deep and probably beat this team in the CS.

1.) huh? Boston and Houston used their rotation afaik..

2.) And? Colon sucked when he did pitch in the ALDS, so losing him helped the Angels. The Rocket sucked when he pitched against the Sox, so losing him helped the Astros.

3.) Weakest set of opponents? The Angels beat the Yankees, and the Astros beat the Cardinals. We also beat the previous World Series champs. If a team advances in the playoffs, they arent weak.

[Greg Hibbard]

The question was....best ever? And for the reasons I listed...the answer is clearly no IMHO. Has the team played one of the best postseasons ever? Yes. Is this the best White Sox team ever? Yes. Am I having the time of my life? Yes. I just think there are more dominant teams than us in recent history and I don't think our set of opponents were all that great.

 

The Red Sox had NO STARTING PITCHING. Clement was just awful. Wells is over the hill. A younger Wells might have picked Graff up. After game 1, I never thought we really had to worry about that series.

 

Going into the Angels series, I was licking my chops at a Colon-less Angels. I felt as though we would win in four or five easily. Did anyone really think Paul freaking Byrd was going to beat us twice? Was anyone really that intimidated by the remnants of that staff? Not me.

 

The Astros? Great story, coming back from 15 under to win the wild card. Strong team? Other than their front three starters and their closer, not so much IMHO. Their hitting is anemic and as soon as Clemens went down in game 1 I thought we had a real good chance of winnign this thing in 5. Were they hard fought victories? Sure. Did we make a s***load of mistakes in game 2? Yeah.

 

This White Sox team is obviously very good. Great even. World Class. Among the best ever? Well, not in my book. I think that's just really hard to say. There are so many great world series winning teams. They are world champions, and that puts them in an elite category of 105 out of probably 2000 or so teams that have ever been fielded. They are certainly better than many World Series winning teams. They have more grit and scrappiness than most winners, that's for sure.

 

Yes, 4 complete games in a row is dominating. They pitched extremely well in the ALCS. Way better than I expected. Yes, 10-1 is one of the best postseason records ever. But the very best ever? I dunno, I don't think so.

[Greg Hibbard]

I mean, I know you all want to kick my ass and all, but I just answered the question honestly.

[Felix]

The question was....best ever? And for the reasons I listed...the answer is clearly no IMHO. Has the team played one of the best postseasons ever? Yes. Is this the best White Sox team ever? Yes. Am I having the time of my life? Yes. I just think there are more dominant teams than us in recent history and I don't think our set of opponents were all that great.

I agree about the fact that this isnt the best team ever. This is the best Sox team I have seen in my lifetime, but its not the best team ever.

 

The Red Sox had NO STARTING PITCHING. Clement was just awful. Wells is over the hill. A younger Wells might have picked Graff up. After game 1, I never thought we really had to worry about that series.

Yet you said they couldnt set their rotation in your previous post. They could. They just have a bad rotation.

 

Going into the Angels series, I was licking my chops at a Colon-less Angels. I felt as though we would win in four or five easily. Did anyone really think Paul freaking Byrd was going to beat us twice? Was anyone really that intimidated by the remnants of that staff? Not me.

Colon was hurting anyway, so I would have preferred to see him try and pitch against the Sox. Beating up on a hurt pitcher is fun.

 

The Astros? Great story, coming back from 15 under to win the wild card. Strong team? Other than their front three starters and their closer, not so much IMHO. Their hitting is anemic and as soon as Clemens went down in game 1 I thought we had a real good chance of winnign this thing in 5. Were they hard fought victories? Sure. Did we make a s***load of mistakes in game 2? Yeah.

They have 3 legit Cy Young candidates. Any team with that is hard to beat.

Edited October 26, 2005 by Felix

[Kid Gleason]

Historically I think this team will be looked back on with admiration from the "experts". It's a team that has done it's job by playing a style of Baseball that not many do. We execute in the forms needed. If we need to be a "small ball" team, a traditional old-school style team, we are one. When we need to go modern and use the long ball, fine, we will.

 

Our pitchers are old-school styled pitchers. They do the jobs when needed. Ted Lyons would have LOVED our staff in comparison to the rest of the pitchers. Our guys do what a pitcher is supposed to do, they finish what they started, or get as close to finishing as is humanly possible anymore.

 

Are we one of the "best ever"? No. Are we a great team that deserves all that we have achieved up until now, and are we on equal grounds with what wore the White Sox name in 1917 and 1919 (two teams considered OUTSTANDING ballclubs)? Very much so.

[Greg Hibbard]

Yet you said they couldnt set their rotation in your previous post.  They could.  They just have a bad rotation.

 

Schilling?

[AirScott]

The White Sox' 10-1 record thus far is a bit overinflated IMO

 

1) all of the teams they faced could not set their rotation

2) Colon was out for the CS, Rocket only lasted three innings, we didn't even face Schilling

3) All of the teams, overall, were among the weakest set of opponents an eventual recent WS winner would face in my opinion. None of these teams are the 2001 or 2003 Yankees, who would've taken us deep and probably beat this team in the CS.

1) the Sox could, a benefit of going 99-63

2) Colon consistently breaks down at the end of the season, Clemens is old and we hit him anyway, Schilling hasn't been healthy for a year

3) buzzkill

[Greg Hibbard]

Look, I know you are jumping down my throat for number 3, but consider this:

 

find me a WS winning team that

 

1) never faced the staff ace in the DS

2) never faced the staff ace in the CS

3) had the game 1 starter leave in the third inning because of injury

 

those circumstances were extremely favorable for the Sox, and made all those teams SIGNIFICANTLY weaker. That's all I'm saying. Not trying to be a buzzkill, but things could've been much tougher for the Sox this playoffs.

 

EDIT: and if any of those squeaker games does NOT go the Sox' way (and there were what, four of them this postseason????) we're never talking about this team as one of the best ever. It's not like they clubbed everyone 15-0 every night....

Edited October 26, 2005 by Greg Hibbard

[Kid Gleason]

Hey, it's not our fault the Red Sox decided to throw out shellshocked Clement in their game 1. What kind of idiot team does that??? Seriously, I understand Game 1 in a 5 game series isn't important at all...

[Greg Hibbard]

For the record, I'd say that the White Sox are probably in the top 20-30 teams all time