10-6 seems like a great start...

[southsider2k5]

Those are fair points...I really think our pen is capable of picking up a bit of extra workload this season...I suppose we'll need them.

 

Yeah, that is logical. Then we are back to depending on three (really four if you count Stewart) rookies out of the pen. Also keep in mind the last time that Thornton was asked to pitch extra innings (when Jenks got hurt in 10) he ended up on the DL not too long after. Crain has successfully taken on higher workloads in the past, but I sure don't want to see Will Oh-man pitching to more batters, as that means he faces more righties.

[TheBlackSox8]

If the Sox look like they're going to compete for a spot in the playoffs, do they bring up another starter to go to a six man rotation to protect Humber, Sale, and Peavy?

I don't think that would be a terrible idea if it came down to saving them for a chance at going into the playoffs.

[flavum]

If the Sox look like they're going to compete for a spot in the playoffs, do they bring up another starter to go to a six man rotation to protect Humber, Sale, and Peavy?

I don't think that would be a terrible idea if it came down to saving them for a chance at going into the playoffs.

 

6-man rotation is an awful idea. It helped Buehrle last year, but it was more for Peavy who was still an unknown factor and Humber who never logged the innings before.

 

You ride this 5-man as long as possible, and if Sale or Humber need a rest, you skip them and bring in somebody like Axelrod.

[chw42]

If the Sox look like they're going to compete for a spot in the playoffs, do they bring up another starter to go to a six man rotation to protect Humber, Sale, and Peavy?

I don't think that would be a terrible idea if it came down to saving them for a chance at going into the playoffs.

 

Who's that other starter...?

 

If the other starter degrades the quality of your rotation, what's the point?

 

Right now, the Sox have 5 guys who can win on any given day. That's a luxury most teams don't have.

[southsider2k5]

Who's that other starter...?

 

If the other starter degrades the quality of your rotation, what's the point?

 

Right now, the Sox have 5 guys who can win on any given day. That's a luxury most teams don't have.

 

So that 1 to 3 of their arms don't fall off when they hit either career, or multi-season highs in IP.

[Balta1701]

6-man rotation is an awful idea. It helped Buehrle last year, but it was more for Peavy who was still an unknown factor and Humber who never logged the innings before.

 

You ride this 5-man as long as possible, and if Sale or Humber need a rest, you skip them and bring in somebody like Axelrod.

If we're really worried about Sale's innings getting up there (and honestly, we should be), then the right move is to swap Sale out of the rotation for a week and use Axelrod to fill that slot. As long as we're not crazy about it, it woudln't be hard to move Stewart and Axelrod back and forth to Charlotte to make this happen.

[caulfield12]

Except every time we "sacrifice" a win for projected future innings and contention in August/September (with Axelrod/Stewart/Doyle starts), it's going to a very unpopular move.

 

It's a tough call....we were within a few games of the Tigers going into August (something like 4 1/2 or 5 1/2) and then they just annihilated us and nearly everyone else down the stretch.

 

This isn't like 2005/06 when we really had SIX legit starters with El Duque/McCarthy and then Javy/McCarthy.

 

Unless there's a significant percentage of our minor league experts who have watched Axelrod and really believe he's going to be a legit major league pitcher. We probably can't say that about Doyle, if they were willing to leave him unprotected.

 

Theoretically, we could catch lightning in a bottle yet again with pitching (last year Humber) and someone like Simon Castro could re-emerge from the minors and tear it up, earning a legit promotion.

 

 

In the end, we've beaten Mariners and A's teams that just don't have much offense in pitcher's parks. We absolutely own the M's the last 3 seasons.

 

Can we win at home?

 

Can we start drawing more crowd support and home field advantage at USCF?

 

Can we beat the Twins, Indians and Royals consistently this year?

 

Yes, we've played better than expected. Yes, we could have won 3 or 4 games against the Orioles and expectations at this point would be even higher than they are now. We've played 2 of the 3 best teams in the league to a standstill (Rangers/Tiggers). We're playing better within our own division, etc.

 

We've had a lot of "false starts" with these Greg Hibbard "great expectations" threads the last 2-3 seasons.

 

Hopefully this one is more sustainable.

 

 

 

 

[hogan873]

No doubt that 16 games is a very small sample size (10% to be accurate). But I am very encouraged by what I'm seeing out of Dunn, Rios, and Peavy. They just look like they are playing better. Will Rios' .360+ average last? Probably not, but he could level out at near .300. He looks a lot more confident and relaxed at the plate. Dunn looks much better, and his .250 average looks pretty sustainable. Peavy looks just freaking dialed in. I don't see every outing being like his last two, but this is the best he has looked in a White Sox uniform for sure.

 

I don't want to get all excited and let myself be disappointed, but I'm thinking this could be a 87-90 win season, and that might be enough to contend.

[Steve9347]

A 500ish season is silly? I sure don't think so.

No, that's an improvement over expectations, but your reasoning is whack given we have so few "kids" on the roster and any "development" you are seeing is at the cost of another year for our good players who are all old.

 

This post seems negative, though, and I don't mean to be, I just think the rationale that we're developing "kids" that don't exist is silly.

[Eminor3rd]

The White Sox are currently 10-6. That's a .625 winning percentage. Over the course of 162 games, if they keep this pace, it's a 101 win season. Just saying.

 

We're also on pace to play the Athletics, Mariners, and Orioles about 80 times.

 

Look, I hope we contend. It's definitely possible, but not likely. If we don't, I'm going to have fun watching De Aza and Viciedo turn into something and following Floyd/Peavy (and maybe Rios) trade rumors at the deadline.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Eminor3rd

[Jake]

Rios, AJ, Paulie will presumably regress a little bit. It's reasonable to believe that Dunn has numbers that will continue on (he's near career averages). De Aza is a bit of a wildcard, not sure what to project from him. Morel, Beckham, Viciedo and/or their replacements will hit better. Peavy and Humber will regress to at least some extent (that's inevitable) and it is likely that Danks and Floyd pitch a bit better. Sale is a wildcard, I imagine he will have several ups and downs. Santiago will probably get better. The rest of the bullpen has done a good job, I don't expect much different. There's some room for things to change and the Sox should still be able to win. OF course, we assume that it won't be like last year where almost noone exceeds expectations or even meets them really.

[southsider2k5]

No, that's an improvement over expectations, but your reasoning is whack given we have so few "kids" on the roster and any "development" you are seeing is at the cost of another year for our good players who are all old.

 

This post seems negative, though, and I don't mean to be, I just think the rationale that we're developing "kids" that don't exist is silly.

 

I'm looking at Sale, Reed, Jones, Santiago, Morel, Beckham, Viciedo, Flowers as developmental guys. That is about 1/3 of the roster.

[iamshack]

We're also on pace to play the Athletics, Mariners, and Orioles about 80 times.

 

Look, I hope we contend. It's definitely possible, but not likely. If we don't, I'm going to have fun watching De Aza and Viciedo turn into something and following Floyd/Peavy (and maybe Rios) trade rumors at the deadline.

We've played Texas and Detroit as well...and Baltimore isn't a horrendous team anymore...I think the schedule thus far has been pretty representative of what you'll see during the course of a full season. In fact, our opponents are a combined 53-43 right now...and 47 and 33 against teams other than our White Sox.

 

 

[caulfield12]

I'm looking at Sale, Reed, Jones, Santiago, Morel, Beckham, Viciedo, Flowers as developmental guys. That is about 1/3 of the roster.

 

If you want to go really crazy, you can include Lillibridge, Escobar and DeAza, although DeAza's 28 and more of a finished project.

 

Humber's "only" 29 and still developing at the major league level, too.

 

Include Zach Stewart (or whoever's in that spot this year, whether it's Axelrod/Doyle/Castro...as long as it's not retreads like Stults or Bruney), you're saying half your roster is close to being in development stage.

 

 

Which leaves

 

Ohman, Crain and Thornton

AJ

Alexei

Paulie

Rios and Fukudome

Dunn

Floyd, Danks, Peavy

Edited April 24, 2012 by caulfield12

[ScottyDo]

A 500ish season is silly? I sure don't think so.

Once I see them go through a period of legitimate difficulty a little later in the season, I may readjust my prediction upwards, but as things stand, we have an unsustainable BABIP-against that is the second lowest in baseball. Our xFIP is also incredibly good, though, so perhaps it won't be a huge regression. Either way, there will be stretches when our pitchers are not unhittable and filthy, and whether or not our offense can make up the gap will determine whether or not we can expect a truly successful season. Like 2k5 said, though, it's silly to abandon your predictions 16 games in. If you thought the Sox were a .500 or below team in February, that's still an entirely possible outcome.

 

That's not to say I'm not enjoying the season so far...they've looked pretty awesome to start off the year. But I won't be at all surprised if they go 6-10 over the next 16. They're totally capable of that, too.

[hogan873]

We've played Texas and Detroit as well...and Baltimore isn't a horrendous team anymore...I think the schedule thus far has been pretty representative of what you'll see during the course of a full season. In fact, our opponents are a combined 53-43 right now...and 47 and 33 against teams other than our White Sox.

Right. I was going to point out that we lost 3 of 4 to the O's. Regardless, I'm not sure anyone sees the Sox maintaining a .625 winning percentage.

[Marty34]

I thought they'd contend with Peavy pitching as a #3 starter. If he is back to ace form, this team has more upside than when they were putting together last year's "all in" bunch.

[Greg Hibbard]

With the start, I guess the one thing that is clear is that this team probably wins 80 games. The larger questions now are how likely it is that Detroit wins more than 93, and if it would take winning 93-94 games to make the wild card. If we can play Detroit head to head tough, we obviously have a chance at the division, but I think the more likely scenario is that the sox play into the wildcard race if Boston continues to struggle and/or the east beats up on each other.

 

The worst case scenario is the sox winning 87 games and ending up something like 6 games out of both races, while hanging on to pieces they could have otherwise moved (Peavy, for one).

Edited April 25, 2012 by Greg Hibbard

[caulfield12]

As debated ad infinitum, Peavy's not going to be easy to move at all. If other teams are after him, it probably means the White Sox will be within shouting distance of first place or at least the wild card. So then you're just talking about dumping more salary or payroll relief, because we're not going to get savings AND a prospect simultaneously.

 

Greg Hibbard jinxed us with this thread, lol. THANKS A LOT!

 

You're also forgetting the Rays, Blue Jays, Orioles, Indians (for now) and eventually the Angels are going to put runs together, it's not just about the Red Sox/Yankees anymore.

 

Unless, Viciedo, Beckham and Morel can pick it up (2 of the 3), there's no chance for us to win more than 85-86-87 games.

 

Because we'll also be dealing with Humber, Sale and maybe Peavy (who knows if we can trust his health, it's an unprecedented surgery) missing starts in the second half, and replaced by much lower quality pitchers from within our system.

 

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

As debated ad infinitum, Peavy's not going to be easy to move at all. If other teams are after him, it probably means the White Sox will be within shouting distance of first place or at least the wild card. So then you're just talking about dumping more salary or payroll relief, because we're not going to get savings AND a prospect simultaneously.

 

Greg Hibbard jinxed us with this thread, lol. THANKS A LOT!

 

You're also forgetting the Rays, Blue Jays, Orioles, Indians (for now) and eventually the Angels are going to put runs together, it's not just about the Red Sox/Yankees anymore.

 

Unless, Viciedo, Beckham and Morel can pick it up (2 of the 3), there's no chance for us to win more than 85-86-87 games.

 

Because we'll also be dealing with Humber, Sale and maybe Peavy (who knows if we can trust his health, it's an unprecedented surgery) missing starts in the second half, and replaced by much lower quality pitchers from within our system.

 

Unless you're just going with the theory we can go 15-3/14-4 against the Twins/Royals/Indians.

 

 

 

 

 

[Greg Hibbard]

As debated ad infinitum, Peavy's not going to be easy to move at all. If other teams are after him, it probably means the White Sox will be within shouting distance of first place or at least the wild card. So then you're just talking about dumping more salary or payroll relief, because we're not going to get savings AND a prospect simultaneously.

 

I think we can both come up with plenty of scenarios where Peavy is dealing but the Sox are not in the race, especially given that our most glaring weakness is our seemingly constant struggle to score runs. My nightmare scenario is similar to 2011: seemingly in it most of the year, Ken "Stand Pat" Williams drools all over his "competing team" at the deadline (and does little else), and the White Sox die down the stretch to a bland 85 wins. That's only happened, what, 4-5 times in the past 12 years?

 

 

Greg Hibbard jinxed us with this thread, lol. THANKS A LOT!

 

 

You're also forgetting the Rays, Blue Jays, Orioles, Indians (for now) and eventually the Angels are going to put runs together, it's not just about the Red Sox/Yankees anymore.

 

I know it's not just about the BoSox, which is why I threw in the remark about the East beating up on each other. I'm hoping all five east teams win between 74 and 93 games, which would set up the Sox to probably really compete for the WC. If the Orioles and Jays bottom out, we would be more in trouble than if they compete. I think the jury is way out on the Indians. Not sure what to make of the Angels yet (or our Sox for that matter).

 

Unless, Viciedo, Beckham and Morel can pick it up (2 of the 3), there's no chance for us to win more than 85-86-87 games.

 

I don't think they're going to hit sub .200 for a complete season, but there's always Adam Dunn's 2011.

 

Because we'll also be dealing with Humber, Sale and maybe Peavy (who knows if we can trust his health, it's an unprecedented surgery) missing starts in the second half, and replaced by much lower quality pitchers from within our system.

 

Explain. Do you mean that there's a hard cap on seasonal IP because the first two have not pitched full seasons? Has that explicitly been stated, or are you just projecting what will probably happen? I think we all know that if Peavy completely goes down this team is screwed anyway.

 

 

Unless you're just going with the theory we can go 15-3/14-4 against the Twins/Royals/Indians.

 

Well, my actual theory is that we can do pretty well against the Central and rake in interleague like we always do. If we hit May 31 over .500 I think we're in good shape to win 87-93 games.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Greg Hibbard

[caulfield12]

No, there's nothing that has been officially stated about "hard innings pitched cap limits" for either Humber or Sale.

 

Common sense, observation....Ventura has actually pushed his starters harder earlier in the season than even Guillen ever did.

 

For example, last night when Floyd came out to work the bottom of the 8th with well over 100...Peavy finishing his shutout/CG in April, etc.

 

 

Just the vague idea that once either of those guys is beyond 140-150 innings pitched, everyone around the organization is going to be looking at any and every sign of possible fatigue, mechanics breakdowns, loss of velocity/dead arm, etc.

 

Some have suggested skipping some of their starts or six man rotations, but we don't have the quality 6th guy at this point to make that possible...as the bloom is off the Zach Stewart rose for now and Molina and Castro are a long ways off still.

 

 

Hibbard, you're one of the first I've seen here to actually predict finishing over 90 wins. Hope you're right, but we might be a bit optimistic...you have to give every season that 40-54 game "eye test" before you can really make any valid conclusions. See how they play against the Twins, Royals, Indians, interleague, etc.

 

The Red Sox series is going to be a great test because the Red Sox seemingly have turned the corner the last two nights in Minnesota and they're no longer in free fall anymore, but they've got lots of injury and pitching problems to deal with. 3/4 would be great, but 2/2 or 1/4 wouldn't be completely suprising either, especially with how well the Orioles played us at home last week (would help to have some more support from the Chicago fans, too).

 

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2012 by caulfield12