The Trib goes there

[NorthSideSox72]

Its been discussed here, in an indirect way. Today, the Trib published an off day article, analyzing the case - is the 2008 team better than the 2005 team?

 

Linky.

 

[BigSqwert]

Only time will tell.

[kapkomet]

Its been discussed here, in an indirect way. Today, the Trib published an off day article, analyzing the case - is the 2008 team better than the 2005 team?

 

Linky.

Ah yes, the on paper vs. on the field debate. I'll take 2005 until they win it in 2008.

 

[bmags]

I'd take our first half record in 05

[Buehrle>Wood]

The 2005 team was one of the best in baseball history. 2008, no matter what we do from here, won't be that.

[BigSqwert]

The 2005 team was one of the best in baseball history. 2008, no matter what we do from here, won't be that.

Even if we play .750 the rest of the way?

[GoSox05]

I like this team, but in 2005 at this point we were 57-27 and 10 games up in the division.

[chitownsportsfan]

So we are winning 100 games and will only lose twice in the playoffs. Cool.

[Pants Rowland]

I think the 2008 Angels are my biggest concern right now when it comes to the 2008 White Sox. Did they mention how this year's Angels squad compares to the 2002 team that won it all? If this year's White Sox team is better than the 2008 Angels team, then I think they have a chance. I am not really concerned about the 2005 team because they are not playing this year.

 

EDIT: Just read it (that always helps). It is interesting they got Frank Thomas to opine on it in an abjective manner.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Pants Rowland

[GreatScott82]

Comparing teams from the previous years is like comparing apples to oranges. Obviously the first half of that year was better, but you also have to take into account that not only were KC bad that year, but Detroit was also horrible. I guess you can say Cleveland is out of it, but they aren't horrible and the Twins and Tigers are much greater competition this year. Each year is different. If you look at the A.L. you have 10 teams .500 or better and realisticly 8 teams will be in the hunt for a playoff spot the rest of the way: Rays, White Sox, Angels, Red Sox, Twins, Yankees, Tigers and even the A's. In '05 it was pretty much set in stone that 4 of 5 teams would make it to the playoffs at the beginning of the 2nd half: White Sox, Red Sox, Yankees, Angels and Indians. So 2008 is a much greater challenge based on the competition around the league... good news for us is that we have K.C. 15 more times. We have to take advantage of the last place teams while there on the schedule, that is something we did often in 2005. We started the year going 10-0 vs the Royals.

[southsider2k5]

Ah yes the three types of lies...

 

 

[Reddy]

So we are winning 100 games and will only lose twice in the playoffs. Cool.

 

twice?

[soxfan3530]

2005 team was better. It had a legit leadoff man (albeit for one year), a good PK, great starting pitching and a crazy good bullpen. Right now we have a good hitter but not a leadoff hitter in the leadoff spot, a bad, banged up PK, really good starting pitching, and a crazy good bullpen that is a little banged up (bobby jenks).

 

 

[Steve9347]

So we are winning 100 games and will only lose twice in the playoffs. Cool.

Well, we won 99 games in 2005 and only lost once in the playoffs.

 

Nice research though.

[SpringfieldFan]

2005 without a doubt right now. We don't even know if the 2008 team will make the playoffs. The 2005 team won it all, but was truly one of the best teams in history. Yeah, 99 wins may seem a bit low if you want to call a team one of the best ever, but I don't consider that late season slump as representative of what that team really was. Before that, they had a ridiculously good, almost impossibly good record. Then with that lead, Oz rested the guys and they lost their edge. However, when they got serious again, the winning returned again at that ridiculous rate, climaxing with 11 of 12 in the postseason. Its conjecture, but in my mind if they committed to keeping their edge during that stretch run, thy would have achieved the 110+ regular season wins that I think they were truly good enough to achieve and that would have clearly established themselves as one of the very best in any argument. Certainly, it could be argued that going full throttle in August and September might have worn them out come playoff time, but I still think the .700 ball they played for the far majority of the season was the true indicator of just how good they were.

 

SFF

[whitesoxbrian]

Ah yes, the on paper vs. on the field debate. I'll take 2005 until they win it in 2008.

That^.

 

I'd like to sit here and say "yeah" but until we repeat what we did in 2005- no, we're not.

[Princess Dye]

Comparing the two pitching staffs, I think Vaz is obviously your Garland... and oddly Floyd is the Contreras, in that he hadnt lived up to expectations in MLB after a few years trying (and Floyd isnt actually extremely young either)

 

Now hopefully MB is MB.....

 

and then after that things can swing wildly one way or another.

 

 

 

Freddy was a 3.80-ish ERA guy who came up big in big games. I dont know that we have that big game pitcher here, which scares me. I'd like to think that's the new Contreras, but it's probably pushing it.

 

And Danks obviously beats out the remainder of that year's rotation, which was a revolving door... but then again we have to see how he handles his longest pitching year ever.

 

 

 

At present, the back of our rotation is a lot more solid, but I see no absolute killer at the ace spot. Danks has looked the most mentally prepared for that type of role. But...Still to be determined.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Princess Dye

[Chisoxfn]

I think the 2008 Angels are my biggest concern right now when it comes to the 2008 White Sox. Did they mention how this year's Angels squad compares to the 2002 team that won it all? If this year's White Sox team is better than the 2008 Angels team, then I think they have a chance. I am not really concerned about the 2005 team because they are not playing this year.

 

EDIT: Just read it (that always helps). It is interesting they got Frank Thomas to opine on it in an abjective manner.

The big thing about the Angels is they play a style of baseball which can exploit the Sox biggest weaknesses (ie, they have the small-ball players who can draw the walk and steal bases and if there is one thing most of the Sox pitchers are prone to doing, its walking guys and having very slow deliveries to the mound, plus AJ is clearly not a good catcher when it comes to throwing guys out).

 

If the Sox make the playoffs, its the Angels/Rays as opposed to the Red Sox whom I'd be more concerned with. Although all are very deserving, championship caliber clubs as of July 8th.

[Chisoxfn]

In terms of comparisons, Jose Contreras was as dominant as any pitcher can be down the stretch. Garland and Buehrle were strong and aside from Duque all pitchers were consistent 200 inning guys that you weren't concerned would be worn down come playoff time.

 

Contreras, Duque, and Garcia all had playoff experience as well. Garcia also still had his nasty stuff. Long term, I'd take the current rotation over that rotation (plus we have 5 starters and Duque was not really much of a starter) but post-season wise, I consider the front end of that rotation far more dominant, plus the experience is key in the post-season. Heck, even as great as this pen has been, its hard to knock Cotts/Politte/Hermy/Jenks who were downright un-hittable.

 

I would say this offense is superior though, although that offense was better at certain things. I would take that pitching staff though, just because it had at least one true "ace" (Contreras). Contreras was throwing video game stuff for the stretch run of that season.

[bmags]

In terms of comparisons, Jose Contreras was as dominant as any pitcher can be down the stretch. Garland and Buehrle were strong and aside from Duque all pitchers were consistent 200 inning guys that you weren't concerned would be worn down come playoff time.

 

Contreras, Duque, and Garcia all had playoff experience as well. Garcia also still had his nasty stuff. Long term, I'd take the current rotation over that rotation (plus we have 5 starters and Duque was not really much of a starter) but post-season wise, I consider the front end of that rotation far more dominant, plus the experience is key in the post-season. Heck, even as great as this pen has been, its hard to knock Cotts/Politte/Hermy/Jenks who were downright un-hittable.

 

I would say this offense is superior though, although that offense was better at certain things. I would take that pitching staff though, just because it had at least one true "ace" (Contreras). Contreras was throwing video game stuff for the stretch run of that season.

 

Contreras didn't establish himself until post all-star game as the ace, so I have hope. He was still good in the first half, but had the same poor run support that poor Danks is having now.

[chw42]

Its been discussed here, in an indirect way. Today, the Trib published an off day article, analyzing the case - is the 2008 team better than the 2005 team?

 

Linky.

 

This team's better on paper by a long shot. More homers, more runs, better ERA.

 

But, how are those Detroit Tigers playing? How bout them Mariners? Doing things on paper is fun, but baseball is played, not calculated.

[Rowand44]

No. This team has a chance to be special but that 05 team is one of the best teams of all time. Sorry, this squad isn't that good.

[YASNY]

In first place from wire to wire and 11-1 in the post season. It doesn't get any better than that.

[Princess Dye]

In first place from wire to wire and 11-1 in the post season. It doesn't get any better than that.

 

One thing though... that team didnt get tons better from beginning of year to end. It was just steadily very good with a blip late in the year. This team has that potential. Better pen, lineup being worse than its history so far.... and a few starters learning as they go but still near All-Star level.

 

 

Also, '08 has more win-by-8 potential than '05. But other things not done nearly as well.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Princess Dye

[The Critic]

I'll call your apples and I'll raise you some oranges.

 

I was already tired of Ed Farmer saying "it feels like 2005, folks" twice a week, so I'm beyond bored at the comparison by now.

For me, nothing can or will be better than the 2005 playoff run, so there's no point in any comparison.

The 2005 regular season gave me some heartburn in the second half, but that playoff run was the best time I ever had watching sports.