no faith and no patience in this organization

[Disco72]

I'm convinced that the correct word there is "Can't", not "won't".

 

You're probably right, which is a shame.

[Greg Hibbard]

Since dropping those two games at the Twins, the Sox have won two series in a row.

 

That's 10-4-1 in their last 15 series for anyone counting, with only 1 home series loss to Detroit, and the others road series losses to a pretty decent Toronto team, a good Texas team and a red-hot Minnesota.

 

Now 26-17 (.605) since May 6th.

[balfanman]

Since dropping those two games at the Twins, the Sox have won two series in a row.

 

That's 10-4-1 in their last 15 series for anyone counting, with only 1 home series loss to Detroit, and the others road series losses to a pretty decent Toronto team, a good Texas team and a red-hot Minnesota.

 

Now 26-17 (.605) since May 6th.

 

That's the problem. The 2 series that they lost to division opponents. Those are the ones you can't keep losing.

[whitesoxbrian]

The Sox face Zimmerman, a**face Gorzelanny, and Hernandez this weekend. That SHOULD be another series win. The Colorado series will be tough, but the Cubs series at Wrigley is very winnable.

[Andrew]

The Sox face Zimmerman, a**face Gorzelanny, and Hernandez this weekend. That SHOULD be another series win. The Colorado series will be tough, but the Cubs series at Wrigley is very winnable.

 

They'll lose one at least. Team is completely incapable of sweeping s***ty teams when they're down.

 

See Oakand @ 10G losing streak for support.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Andrew

[Greg Hibbard]

That's the problem. The 2 series that they lost to division opponents. Those are the ones you can't keep losing.

 

If they had dropped 5 games to NYY and BOS, we would have said "they can't beat contenders"

if they had dropped 5 games to the Cubs and Oakland, we would have said "they can't beat the bad teams"

if they had dropped 5 day games, we would have said "they can't win day games"

 

I just can't bring myself to cherry pick FIVE f***ing games out of 43 that they won 60+% of and find much fault in losing a couple of them.

 

They'll lose one at least. Team is completely incapable of sweeping s***ty teams when they're down.

 

See Oakand @ 10G losing streak for support.

 

Unbelievable - now not sweeping a FOUR GAME series is the problem???

 

The 2003 Detroit Tigers, the team that nearly lost 120 games, played a total of 7 4-game series. They didn't get swept in 6 of them. That should tell you how hard it is to sweep ANY team in a four game series.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Greg Hibbard

[balfanman]

If they had dropped 5 games to NYY and BOS, we would have said "they can't beat contenders"

if they had dropped 5 games to the Cubs and Oakland, we would have said "they can't beat the bad teams"

if they had dropped 5 day games, we would have said "they can't win day games"

 

No, I would not of said any of that. The fact of the matter is that if you cannot consistently win in your own division then it is also tough to win the division and make the playoffs, because the wildcard is not coming out of the central. I'll worry about beating Boston and New York in October

 

[caulfield12]

If they had dropped 5 games to NYY and BOS, we would have said "they can't beat contenders"

if they had dropped 5 games to the Cubs and Oakland, we would have said "they can't beat the bad teams"

if they had dropped 5 day games, we would have said "they can't win day games"

 

I just can't bring myself to cherry pick FIVE f***ing games out of 43 that they won 60+% of and find much fault in losing a couple of them.

 

 

 

Unbelievable - now not sweeping a FOUR GAME series is the problem???

 

The 2003 Detroit Tigers, the team that nearly lost 120 games, played a total of 7 4-game series. They didn't get swept in 6 of them. That should tell you how hard it is to sweep ANY team in a four game series.

 

 

C'mon Greg, it's not just those two series, it's the fact that they're 1-9 against the Twins and Tigers overall this year.

 

If you look at 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010, all of those SOX teams played very well within the division.

 

And we invididually blew four saves out of 10 games against the A's and I think won another game in which we had a blown save. 6-4 should have been, at worst, 8-2 or possibly 9-1.

 

 

 

None of it matters unless/until Dunn/Rios/Pierre/Beckham (at least 2 and probably 3 of the 4, because the odds of Konerko continuing to hit at this clip aren't high) play at anywhere close to their abilities and/or Viciedo comes up. And it's also predicated on Humber keeping this up as well.

 

And actually figuring out how to beat a MUCH MUCH better Twins team than the one that has beaten us four times in a row and 27 of the last 35.

 

The Tigers had beaten us 8 consecutive times dating back to last year before we finally won a game against them.

 

 

 

 

[balfanman]

C'mon Greg, it's not just those two series, it's the fact that they're 1-9 against the Twins and Tigers overall this year.

 

If you look at 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010, all of those SOX teams played very well within the division.

 

And we invididually blew four saves out of 10 games against the A's and I think won another game in which we had a blown save. 6-4 should have been, at worst, 8-2 or possibly 9-1.

 

 

 

None of it matters unless/until Dunn/Rios/Pierre/Beckham (at least 2 and probably 3 of the 4, because the odds of Konerko continuing to hit at this clip aren't high) play at anywhere close to their abilities and/or Viciedo comes up. And it's also predicated on Humber keeping this up as well.

 

And actually figuring out how to beat a MUCH MUCH better Twins team than the one that has beaten us four times in a row and 27 of the last 35.

 

The Tigers had beaten us 8 consecutive times dating back to last year before we finally won a game against them.

 

Thank you!

[Greg Hibbard]

The 2006 Cardinals went 39-42 in the NL Central and won the World Series.

The 2009 Rockies were 33-39 vs. the NL West and won a wild card.

 

At least three other teams that I've found in a cursory glance over the past 5 years have barely been .500 vs. their division and won it. (06 padres, 09 angels among them)

 

The 2010 world champion giants were also just 4 games over vs. their division.

 

Obviously, we can't continue to win 33% of our divisional games, but I hardly think we can draw any conclusions from 17 games.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Greg Hibbard

[southsider2k5]

C'mon Greg, it's not just those two series, it's the fact that they're 1-9 against the Twins and Tigers overall this year.

 

If you look at 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010, all of those SOX teams played very well within the division.

 

And we invididually blew four saves out of 10 games against the A's and I think won another game in which we had a blown save. 6-4 should have been, at worst, 8-2 or possibly 9-1.

 

 

 

None of it matters unless/until Dunn/Rios/Pierre/Beckham (at least 2 and probably 3 of the 4, because the odds of Konerko continuing to hit at this clip aren't high) play at anywhere close to their abilities and/or Viciedo comes up. And it's also predicated on Humber keeping this up as well.

 

And actually figuring out how to beat a MUCH MUCH better Twins team than the one that has beaten us four times in a row and 27 of the last 35.

 

The Tigers had beaten us 8 consecutive times dating back to last year before we finally won a game against them.

 

This kind of hindsight always seems to go one way. There are just as many games we could look back and say we should have lost. How about last night for example, when the winning run happened because of a bases loaded HBP which started out of a two out, nobody no situation?

[Greg Hibbard]

Another point that seems to be lost is that we play in a really bad division, seemingly.

 

I'd be very surprised if the winner of the AL Central wins 90 games. If the winner was going to be in the 94-98 game range, then yes, obviously it's crucial that you beat the teams in your own division.

 

It tends to matter less that you win divisional games in divisions that are won with 85,86,88 games. It's not insignificant, but it matters yes.

[LittleHurt05]

This kind of hindsight always seems to go one way. There are just as many games we could look back and say we should have lost. How about last night for example, when the winning run happened because of a bases loaded HBP which started out of a two out, nobody no situation?

 

Last night's winning rally would have been over if not for an error on DeWitt too. Or how about the game where they scored 4 on Soria with 2 outs? Or the 8th/9th inning comeback vs. LA where the winning run scored on a IBB wild pitch? Or the Yankees game where back-to-back circus catches by Lilli prevented walk-off hits?

[Balta1701]

Or the Yankees game where back-to-back circus catches by Lilli prevented walk-off hits?

Wins driven by the Stealth Elf have nothing to do with luck.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Wins driven by the Stealth Elf have nothing to do with luck.

 

You can add his potential (probable?) game saving HR robbery in the Oakland game last week too

[Milkman delivers]

Another point that seems to be lost is that we play in a really bad division, seemingly.

 

I'd be very surprised if the winner of the AL Central wins 90 games. If the winner was going to be in the 94-98 game range, then yes, obviously it's crucial that you beat the teams in your own division.

 

It tends to matter less that you win divisional games in divisions that are won with 85,86,88 games. It's not insignificant, but it matters yes.

 

Ugh, the very worst thing that can happen for this team's future is to take this division with like 85 wins. It would buy another 2 or 3 years for KW and Ozzie and would lead to the same stale and stagnant team/play that we've been witnessing for years. We need to infuse some new blood, even if it's not a complete overhaul. The coaching and administrative aspect of this team needs serious change in both personnel and philosophy.

[caulfield12]

The 2006 Cardinals went 39-42 in the NL Central and won the World Series.

The 2009 Rockies were 33-39 vs. the NL West and won a wild card.

 

At least three other teams that I've found in a cursory glance over the past 5 years have barely been .500 vs. their division and won it. (06 padres, 09 angels among them)

 

The 2010 world champion giants were also just 4 games over vs. their division.

 

Obviously, we can't continue to win 33% of our divisional games, but I hardly think we can draw any conclusions from 17 games.

 

 

So you have a team with the best player in baseball (no, Konerko's not that...although close in terms of hitting lately)...and a notorious second half team in the Rockies.

 

The Giants had the best pitching in baseball (along with the Phillies), I don't quite think we can quite claim that distinction at this point.

 

 

The bar just seems to be set pretty low. With a $128 million dollar payroll, hoping and praying for the division winner to get only 84-88 wins wasn't exactly the plan.

 

Essentially, you're asking for a repeat of 2008, except without being the front-runner and having to hold off 3 clubs this year instead of just the Twins.

 

We've beaten the Tigers before pretty consistently...but that's a whole new monster with Verlander and Scherzer the way they've pitched. We might look at Thome/Kotsay last year....and Victor Martinez/Dunn this year as the two moves/non-moves that tipped the division away from us in consecutive years.

 

 

So...with the White Sox having no record of second half comebacks (except for 3 games at the end of 2008) to speak of...what makes you think our recent trends against both the AL Central and in the 2nd half will change?

 

What is different about this year? That we're playing so god-awful but still in it? Well, that show already debuted in 2009, and it didn't end very well.

 

If we do something to show the entire team that everyone's accountable (releasing Pierre) and that Dunn/Rios/Beckham won't just be given time but will have to work hard to earn it by performing.....there's about a 35-40% chance they can pull it off.

Edited June 23, 2011 by caulfield12

[balfanman]

Another point that seems to be lost is that we play in a really bad division, seemingly.

 

I'd be very surprised if the winner of the AL Central wins 90 games. If the winner was going to be in the 94-98 game range, then yes, obviously it's crucial that you beat the teams in your own division.

 

It tends to matter less that you win divisional games in divisions that are won with 85,86,88 games. It's not insignificant, but it matters yes.

 

But with the rare exception,(Cardinals) teams that can't beat teams in their own division are usually a quick exit in the playoffs.

[kitekrazy]

But with the rare exception,(Cardinals) teams that can't beat teams in their own division are usually a quick exit in the playoffs.

 

It's annoying to see the Sox lay down to the weaker teams in their division around August. It makes beating the Twins more of an issue.

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Ugh, the very worst thing that can happen for this team's future is to take this division with like 85 wins. It would buy another 2 or 3 years for KW and Ozzie and would lead to the same stale and stagnant team/play that we've been witnessing for years. We need to infuse some new blood, even if it's not a complete overhaul. The coaching and administrative aspect of this team needs serious change in both personnel and philosophy.

 

See that is just absurd. If we win in the 85 range and do NOT take the division, yes, valid point. But getting into the playoffs means anything can happen from that point on. I know people are tired of hearing it but look at the '06 Cardinals. I don't care how many wins we had in the regular season if it puts us in a position to play for a WS.

[Milkman delivers]

See that is just absurd. If we win in the 85 range and do NOT take the division, yes, valid point. But getting into the playoffs means anything can happen from that point on. I know people are tired of hearing it but look at the '06 Cardinals. I don't care how many wins we had in the regular season if it puts us in a position to play for a WS.

 

Well, I'm of the opinion that we'd get embarrassed in the playoffs. But I see your point. Put the caveat "and we lose in the first round" in there. Then that'd be the worst thing for the franchise going forward.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Well, I'm of the opinion that we'd get embarrassed in the playoffs. But I see your point. Put the caveat "and we lose in the first round" in there. Then that'd be the worst thing for the franchise going forward.

 

I get your reasoning of that win total being in the "we're not that bad, let's give it another shot with the status quo" realm, but to me, any time you get to the playoffs I throw out the regular season. I will admit that winning 84-87 and not winning the division could be awful, but if that's what it takes to win the division this year, so be it.

[southsider2k5]

Well, I'm of the opinion that we'd get embarrassed in the playoffs. But I see your point. Put the caveat "and we lose in the first round" in there. Then that'd be the worst thing for the franchise going forward.

 

Being embarrassed in the playoffs doesn't depend on your regular season win total. Plenty of win leaders have lost their open round series.

[Milkman delivers]

Being embarrassed in the playoffs doesn't depend on your regular season win total. Plenty of win leaders have lost their open round series.

 

I didn't say it did. I said that it's my opinion that they'd get embarrassed.

[Greg Hibbard]

I'm just shocked that so many have such a great idea about what will happen to this team, when the 11-22 start and the 26-17 since are really completely jeckyl and hyde scenarios. Yes, one lost 5 in a row to the Twins and Tigers, and the other lost 4 of 5 to the same teams. If you can't see differences despite those small sample sizes, then I guess there's no point in watching the rest of the season. We will win series against each of those teams at some point this season.

 

This team is IMPROVING. It was abysmal at the start of the year, and now it appears to be competitive against most teams. I'm quite confused by those of you who continue to focus on 5 games as we continue to generally win series after series.

 

You ask why this season is different? We are 4.5 out despite a team OPS and team ERA in the bottom half of the AL, with reason to believe many players will return to form over the course of the season. I can't imagine our team collectively putting up worse numbers (despite some bright spots) than a .718 OPS and a .254 team batting average. 3 of our 5 starters (Floyd, Danks, Jackson) have had disappointing numbers, and a 4th is right around his career numbers (Buehrle), and the 5th has been injured most of the year (Peavy). Humber is pitching well, thank god. Our bullpen has given up tons of games they normally don't, our defense has had game-squandering problems.

 

This entire thing is really going to come down to whether a single 4-18 stretch early on can kill a season.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Greg Hibbard