no faith and no patience in this organization

[Milkman delivers]

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 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.

 

Or a cold stretch in August/September. And yes, they weren't as bad as they started, but they're not a .600 winning percentage team either. They're somewhere in the middle, which will have them finishing likely around 80-85 wins. It seems to be a never-ending cycle.

[LittleHurt05]

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

 

Just like when they get embarrassed at Fenway

[Milkman delivers]

Just like when they get embarrassed at Fenway

 

I mean, they did get embarrassed in 2008 as a regular season team that hardly deserved to make the postseason.

[Greg Hibbard]

Or a cold stretch in August/September. And yes, they weren't as bad as they started, but they're not a .600 winning percentage team either. They're somewhere in the middle, which will have them finishing likely around 80-85 wins. It seems to be a never-ending cycle.

 

80 wins in unlikely, IMO - do you think that they will be .500 the rest of the way?

 

a .550 record the rest of the way would give them between 84-85 wins.

a .580 record would give them 87 wins.

Either one of those could win this division.

 

I could see them winning at either clip for the rest of the season.

[maggsmaggs]

I mean, they did get embarrassed in 2008 as a regular season team that hardly deserved to make the postseason.

I wouldn't say we embarrassed that year though. We won one and game one was close (in fact, we led early). It's not as bad as 2000 was when we had 95 wins.

 

My philosophy is get to the playoffs and just see.

[Milkman delivers]

80 wins in unlikely, IMO - do you think that they will be .500 the rest of the way?

 

a .550 record the rest of the way would give them between 84-85 wins.

a .580 record would give them 87 wins.

Either one of those could win this division.

 

I could see them winning at either clip for the rest of the season.

 

They could be anywhere in that range, I suppose with an extreme high and low of about 87 and 77. I'm expecting closer to what I said, though, with 80-85.

 

I truly do not expect them to make any noise if they do indeed make the playoffs, and IMO, that is the worst potential outcome. As I said, I think that it would result in another few years of this regime and I again truly believe that this organization needs some fresh blood in the management areas.

[LittleHurt05]

I mean, they did get embarrassed in 2008 as a regular season team that hardly deserved to make the postseason.

 

That team had to keep pitchers pitching on 3 days rest just to make the playoffs and had to throw their mental midget #4 starter in game 1, which kinda threw it all off from the get go. I still wouldn't call that series an embarassment.

[Greg Hibbard]

They could be anywhere in that range, I suppose with an extreme high and low of about 87 and 77. I'm expecting closer to what I said, though, with 80-85.

 

I truly do not expect them to make any noise if they do indeed make the playoffs, and IMO, that is the worst potential outcome. As I said, I think that it would result in another few years of this regime and I again truly believe that this organization needs some fresh blood in the management areas.

 

I believe this roster is talented enough to hang with anyone in the AL, if they play to their potential. I happen to believe that what's going on has to do with normal baseball slumps, which happen to all teams and players, and you see it as gross mismanagement. Given Dunn and Rios' performances - what exactly would you do differently with them? With Peavy? With the bullpen that has been so inconsistent?

 

I'll tell you what I saw last night - I saw a winner. The bullpen was amazing, with Santos nearly unhittable. Last night was the first time this whole season I said "we've got this" heading into the 9th. It appears that Santos is really coming into his own.

[Milkman delivers]

I believe this roster is talented enough to hang with anyone in the AL, if they play to their potential. I happen to believe that what's going on has to do with normal baseball slumps, which happen to all teams and players, and you see it as gross mismanagement. Given Dunn and Rios' performances - what exactly would you do differently with them? With Peavy? With the bullpen that has been so inconsistent?

 

I'll tell you what I saw last night - I saw a winner. The bullpen was amazing, with Santos nearly unhittable. Last night was the first time this whole season I said "we've got this" heading into the 9th. It appears that Santos is really coming into his own.

 

See, that's the problem. I don't think this team ever plays up to its potential anymore and that's something I hang directly on management. I know you disagree, but I feel that they underachieve almost every single year. That's why I think they need to bring new people in on the management front.

[maggsmaggs]

See, that's the problem. I don't think this team ever plays up to its potential anymore and that's something I hang directly on management. I know you disagree, but I feel that they underachieve almost every single year. That's why I think they need to bring new people in on the management front.

That's one of my biggest pet peeves when people defend OZ/KW. Well the players just underachieved. Underachieved for nearly every year in the 2000s?!?!? At some point, the underachieving has to be placed on the management of the team. Heck, I don't think it's underachieving, I think it's poorly built ballclubs with no minor league system to help supplant those struggling players.

[caulfield12]

I believe this roster is talented enough to hang with anyone in the AL, if they play to their potential. I happen to believe that what's going on has to do with normal baseball slumps, which happen to all teams and players, and you see it as gross mismanagement. Given Dunn and Rios' performances - what exactly would you do differently with them? With Peavy? With the bullpen that has been so inconsistent?

 

I'll tell you what I saw last night - I saw a winner. The bullpen was amazing, with Santos nearly unhittable. Last night was the first time this whole season I said "we've got this" heading into the 9th. It appears that Santos is really coming into his own.

 

 

Then how do you explain their well below average record against teams under .500?

 

The fact that except for 2008 and that stretch in 2010, they've actually been an average home field team....and often better on the road?

 

Their inability to put away teams like the Indians and Royals in the last 5 years...when they should be crushing them and playing .500 baseball against the Twins and walking away with the divisions?

 

Most Sox fans would argue that Minnesota never had a clear talent advantage over the Sox until last year. Would you agree with that? So the Twins have overachieved from 2001-2010 or we have underachieved? Or we've simply underachieved against Minnesota?

 

What is your suggestion for changing our "bad luck/performance anxiety" against the Twins?

Edited June 23, 2011 by caulfield12

[lostfan]

I don't know, I mean, you'll just have to excuse me for feeling ambivalent or cynical towards this team. I watch, cuz I'm a fan and that's just what I do (and the fact that there's really nothing else happening between the NBA playoffs and Week 1 of the NFL season doesn't hurt). They tanked to start the season pretty hard and dug a deep hole and they are taking forever to climb out of it. Watching one area of the team excel while another grossly underperforms their expectations, then when that shores itself up, there is a glaring weakness that develops somewhere else out of nowhere. I feel like I've seen this movie before, Adam Dunn is just a new character that got introduced in the 3rd movie, or the 4th, whichever one we're on now.

[lostfan]

If and when Dunn breaks out of his slump, and then the Sox go and have like a 9-game winning streak - something they've done before - I'll probably completely change my tone.

[Greg Hibbard]

Then how do you explain their well below average record against teams under .500?

 

This team is 14-11 since May 6th against sub .500 teams. Call me an optimist, but the 4-18 stretch during mid april to early may is going to be akin to the other worst stretches of any season, and focusing on data in that is foolhardy. Outside of those 22 games, the White Sox have played very well, at .611 clip. Does it feel more correct to you to put more emphasis on those 22 games where they were worse than any white sox team in memory, or the other 54 games in which their record is much more in line with expectations? In other words, almost 3/4 of their games are being played at a clip we expected. When that number hits 80% of their games...or 85% of their games...then will you think that the .611 edition overshadows the .190 edition?

 

The fact that except for 2008 and that stretch in 2010, they've actually been an average home field team....and often better on the road?

 

I'm not sure I understand this. In 2009, a year you seem to be emphasizing, this team cut payroll severely from $121M to $96M, to become a middle of the pack payroll. Everyone knew that it was going to be a "restructuring" or a "rebuilding" or a "reloading" year. Still, they went 79-83 and won more than half of their home games...how exactly do you evaluate that season with respect to the above comment? Is 43-38 for the 2009 season an "average" record given a below-.500 team that just slashed their bloated payroll?

 

Their inability to put away teams like the Indians and Royals in the last 5 years...when they should be crushing them and playing .500 baseball against the Twins and walking away with the divisions?

 

The last 5 years? So we're including going 7-11 to that 07 Indians team that was a heartbeat away from the World Series? In 2007 and 2008 we crushed the Royals at a 12-6 clip each year. In 2009, as I mentioned, we slashed payroll, won 79 games...yet still had an above .500 record against the Indians. Yes, we had a .500 clip against the Royals, but what kind of team were we fielding? We were .500 or better against both teams last year. What exactly should we be expecting, here?

 

Most Sox fans would argue that Minnesota never had a clear talent advantage over the Sox until last year. Would you agree with that? So the Twins have overachieved from 2001-2010 or we have underachieved? Or we've simply underachieved against Minnesota?

 

I don't agree with this evaluation, because evaluating teams in terms of talent going into a season is very tricky with respect to the unpredictable nature of baseball statistics. Which would have been easier to predict, Konerko's 03 season or Konerko's 11 season? For a player as "consistent" as him, those two years are literally night and day.

 

I'm also not really sure why people want to say this team "underachieved" during the entire Williams era. I'm not entirely sure what you do with the Thomas injury in 2001, the Thomas/Ordonez injuries of 2004, the 2009 payroll slash...or the fact that this team clearly overachieved to win the freaking World Series in one of those years. Can a team "underachieve" and still win 89-90 games? Maybe by 1-3 games, I guess... I honestly wonder how many games the 2006 or 2010 team would have had to have win for people to be satisfied if they DIDN'T win the division. 92? 93? If they had won that many games and not won the division would you say they "underachieved"? I dunno. It's really hard to say a 92 win team "underachieved".

 

What is your suggestion for changing our "bad luck/performance anxiety" against the Twins?

 

My suggestion is to take a look at history and note our 49-25 record against the Detroit Tigers from 2005-2008, despite the fact that two of those Tiger teams were pretty damned good. At times, one division teams seem to "own" another divisional team. They play them so often and regularly that there are bound to be swings like this. It's called variance. Guillen still had an above .500 record against the Twins from 2004-2008, better than you would expect against a team that is almost always competitive. The last 35 games, we've had a swing. Swings happen. Is there no perspective for such a thing on this board?

[Milkman delivers]

I didn't want to muddy up the emphasis of the Hyperbole thread, so I figured I'd take this here.

 

I'm the most cynical person I know, in regards to how I feel about people, but the White Sox are the one area of my life where I love and support unconditionally.

 

That's fine and dandy, but the problem arises when you defend every little thing the team does and never hold them accountable for the mistakes that they make. Many of us feel that quite a few people do just that on this site. As fans, our job is to support the team financially. Our only tool to keep the team in line when it's going in the wrong direction is to cut off that support. It's something I'm doing right now. I refuse to buy another ticket until some changes are made, namely removing Ozzie and likely KW. I'd stop watching the games entirely, but I just don't have the heart for that. Supporting them financially no matter what they do is, IMO, a terrible mistake. That's what happened with the Cubs over the last 20 years. It's like having a kid that you never discipline. When a teacher tells you he did this and that in class, you say "not my son" and continue to let him do whatever he wants. One day that kid's going to end up in jail. That's the best metaphor I can come up with off of the top of my head. We, as fans, can't allow the team to continue to waste money and to depend on inept management or else they will run the franchise into the ground or at least continue to put a mediocre product on the field.

[Greg Hibbard]

It's something I'm doing right now. I refuse to buy another ticket until some changes are made, namely removing Ozzie and likely KW. I'd stop watching the games entirely, but I just don't have the heart for that. Supporting them financially no matter what they do is, IMO, a terrible mistake.

 

If this isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is.

 

This team is 4.5 games out, and climbing. If they don't make the playoffs this season, I agree that changes need to be made. It boggles the mind that you would boycott this team as they continue to gain ground in the division.

 

[caulfield12]

If this isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is.

 

This team is 4.5 games out, and climbing. If they don't make the playoffs this season, I agree that changes need to be made. It boggles the mind that you would boycott this team as they continue to gain ground in the division.

 

 

I'm not sure how much of it is climbing and how much of it was the Indians going 4-14 and falling back to the pack.

 

Probably a little of both. I think Minnesota going from 16 GB to 6-7 game back is a better definition of climbing.

 

 

I don't think it is just Milkman...the skepticism runs deeply through the White Sox fanbase. How else can you explain the lack of sellouts against the Cubs? Granted, that run last year gave everyone SOME degree of hope that we could get back into it again this year, but just because it happened once or citing the example of the 2006 Cardinals doesn't mean something is LIKELY to happen again.

 

In general, the White Sox haven't played very well at home for most of the last 2 1/2 seasons...with the obvious exception of the 30 game stretch last year when they were beating everyone over the heads.

 

What is perplexing to me is why players like Beckham and Quentin have struggled so much at USCF. Dunn, this year. Or Chris Sale, where he pitches like an ace on the road and falls apart at home. Yeah, I know this will happen occasionally, statistical variance, etc. But it really seems to be an entrenched trend now.

 

Some of the players have even mentioned they feel more relaxed and comfortable out on the road, away from the pressure and expectations of and the fans and media. Obviously, Soriano's comments have helped to stir this idea and keep it alive.

 

Still, the fans' "lack of belief" shouldn't be an excuse for the players to use as a crutch when they lose or don't perform well. Do we have too many "psychologically fragile" players who are too sensitive to what is written or said about them? If so, what can be done to address this issue?

 

It's also a stretch for me to imagine that Dunn, Rios, Beckham, Edwin Jackson, Floyd and Pierre (just giving a few examples) would always perform well if we had only polite, sell-out crowds who unconditionally support the Sox. It feels like a ton of players have come up short in front of big home crowds, upon returning from successful road trips, or in "big series" match-ups.

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

I'm not sure how much of it is climbing and how much of it was the Indians going 4-14 and falling back to the pack.

 

Probably a little of both. I think Minnesota going from 16 GB to 6-7 game back is a better definition of climbing.

Going from 11 under to 3 under is climbing.

[caulfield12]

Going from 11 under to 3 under is climbing.

 

 

Nevertheless, it won't feel like we're really climbing until we break out of this constant "2-5 games under .500" range or band we've been in for weeks, seemingly.

 

Hopefully, tonight. Who knows how Washington will react to the loss of their manager, though.

[southsider2k5]

Going from 11 under to 3 under is climbing.

 

And in a fairly short amount of time. Something like six weeks or so.

[Balta1701]

And in a fairly short amount of time. Something like six weeks or so.

It's be more fun to do it all at once though. How about starting next weekend?

[Greg Hibbard]

Let's go back to May 6th.

 

What winning percentage since then would you have liked to have seen to convince you this team was "climbing"? .700? .800? .900?

Edited June 24, 2011 by Greg Hibbard

[caulfield12]

Let's go back to May 6th.

 

What winning percentage since then would you have liked to have seen to convince you this team was "climbing"? .700? .800? .900?

 

Whatever percentage will put us in first place on the last day of the season.

 

Since we put up a 4-18 stretch that has taken us 6+ weeks to recover from (at that point, 7-4 and on the verge of beating Oakland before you know what happened)...and we went 15-3 in interleague last year (6-3 now), this year we'll just have to settle for our current 2/3 trend.

 

As long as we do that against Minnesota and Detroit from here on out, we'll win the division.

Edited June 24, 2011 by caulfield12

[Greg Hibbard]

Caulfield - you refuse the directly answer the question I asked, despite doubting that this white sox team was "climbing" on the previous page. To this point, what winning percentage would you have needed to see over the past 43 games to convince you this team was "climbing"?

 

You also claim that Minnesota has done a better job of "climbing"...

 

Does their recent 15-2 stretch mean more to you than the 8-25 they immediately did before that? If so, shouldn't the White Sox most recent stretch of 26-17 mean more to you than the 4-18 they put up previously? The Twins have now lost their last two - does that mean as much to you as the two games the White Sox lost up in Minnesota? There is a serious double standard at work here.

 

Even if the Twins go 19-0 against the White Sox, they have go .500 against everyone else just to win 84 games. Does anyone honestly think they can do either of those things?

Edited June 24, 2011 by Greg Hibbard

[Milkman delivers]

If this isn't hyperbole, I don't know what is.

 

This team is 4.5 games out, and climbing. If they don't make the playoffs this season, I agree that changes need to be made. It boggles the mind that you would boycott this team as they continue to gain ground in the division.

 

It can't possibly be hyperbole, as it's what I'm actually doing. And I'm doing it because, despite their climbing, I am very confident that they will do the same thing they've done many times before and choke down the stretch or, at the very worst, make the playoffs with a weak record and get booted. This would result in Ozzie and KW keeping their jobs for another few years. I firmly believe that that is the worst thing for the organization moving forward. We've been over this.