A Crosstown WS feaseable; 2006

[cubssox fan]

The Cubs will win a World Series before the White Sox play in another one.

 

No way in the world they come close to duplicating what they did this year again. Not a chance.

 

Yeah, the Sox aren't exactly a budding dynasty.

they could get better and younger though if they go with McArthy and Anderson in the outfield. Plus they have Sweeny and Chris Young in the wings. I don't think they are a dynasty but they did just win the freaking world series.

 

Sweeney needs to hit more than 1 HR in a full minor league season for me to think highly of him. Chris Young is still a high-risk, high-reward prospect. We'll see how McCarthy and Anderson do next year (it'd be a shame if Brian Anderson wasn't starting next year in their OF).

 

No doubt their farm system is better than the Cubs, but it's not like these young kids are studs, outside of maybe Young.

Chris Young is Felix Pie, yet we are all pumped over Felix.

 

It's not wise to be that pumped over Felix or Chris Young yet, they both have some work to do to be quality big leaguers.

 

 

I think its fair to be pumped about both players... Yes right now they are still only prospects but 2 be pumped up about what both possibly can be in the future...... Although people have to understand that their is a chance they wont make it but its ok to be excited.

 

 

As for everyone saying the White Sox players having career years.... Other than Contreras who always had the "stuff" please name 1. And im throwing this out there 2... pitchers dont have career years at 26... when pitchers have career years its like what Loaiza did in his 30's.

Cliff Politte, Dustin Hermanson, Neil Cotts. I grant you that Cotts is young, at least. But still... ERAs in the low 2's for each of them?

 

Ok for sure Ill give you Cliff Politte he had a great season his best in the majors.... With Cotts like you said he is young only his 2nd full season in the majors so unless he sucks the rest of his career it cant be considered that.

 

As for Hermanson if you look he was great as a reliever for the giants. He had 2 bad innings giving up 4 runs each and than basicly shutout the rest of the time. Also for how great he was the first half of the season he was a total non-factor in the 2nd half with his back.

 

Nothing is guaranteed but also for someone to say the cubs are closer is dumb. If the Cubs bring in some big F/A's and our healthy to begin the season I like their chances though.

 

In my mind the Cards are crumbling and on the decline and the Astros unless Clemens returns and they add another impact bat in the lineup so yeah...

[SouthSideRyan]

What team has won a world series where everything didn't "all come together?" I don't think they'll repeat but their regression probably won't be too dramatic.

 

Playing in the weak AL Central and having their starting pitching, they should have a good shot at 90+ wins. Of course, they did have career years out of 6 or 7 players, but their pitching should decrease the chances of a huge regression.

 

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Indians win the central next year.

 

I'd be very surprised if the Indians don't win the Central. Sox take 3rd in the Central next year with a worse record than the Cubs.

[MPrior]

Saying a young guy can't have a career year, and therefore the argument that the White Sox won because of pitchers having career years is wrong, is a bit silly. Garland, Cotts and Jenks all had years that they had never come close to before. And yeah, I guess that's not necessarily a "career year," but that's just a matter of nomenclature. You could call it a "breakout year," and it amounts to the same thing. So Contreras, Garland, Cotts and Jenks all had "breakout years," (and without Cotts and Jenks, the Sox would not have won), and Hermanson (and, arguably, others) had a "career year" (and as far as Hermanson's back goes, it could be argued that the Sox only got to the playoffs in the first place because of their ridiculous first half, when Hermanson was at his most effective).

 

Just Like Derrek Lee is likely to regress (although not necessarily to his career norms), these guys are unlikely to ALL repeat what they did this year. This is especially true of pitchers - and even moreso for relievers.

[cubssox fan]

Well Jenks has a 100 mph fastball and a curve that some say is a better pitch than his fastball.... also this was his only year in the majors so dont think he will regress should get better.

 

All im saying is Garland and Cotts especially could get even better rather than worse or the same....Also keep in mind with B-Mac as a starter the Sox will have El Duque in the pen 2 which he can be very effective and wont wear his arm out.

 

 

I think Derrek Lee is for real btw.... maybe not quite as good as the first half but he always had the tools to do this.... If the cubs can keep walker and than sign an actual real leadoff hitter he can win the MVP easy... especially if the cubs sign Giles and have Ramirez behind him...

[SouthSideRyan]

Cotts can get better??

 

As in he could put up better #s the rest of his career??

 

Jenks also is really really dumb, and doesn't have the minor league #s to back up the #s he put up this year. Also, all that champagne can't be good for his "personal problems"

[cubssox fan]

When is it required to be smart to be a baseball player lol.... anyways Jenks has grown up a lot since he was first drafted.... Having a wife and kids is probably the main reason.

[Priorknowledge]

Guillen, despite evidence to the contrary, is not a good in-game manager.

 

This postseason he clearly out managed two skippers that had previously won world series titles before he vaporized that idiot Phil Garner in the WS. The White Sox had a lead in a crazy amount of games consecutively to start the season because of his direction of the squad and his idealogy to at least get one run on the board before doing anything else. On top of that, the White Sox had the best record in baseball in one run games by a wide margin. Would that be your evidence to the contrary? What's your evidence in support? Witchcraft?

 

First: The is one reason why the White Sox will fail to even make the playoffs next yr: the Cleveland Indians. The only reason why the White Sox made the playoffs, was the built such a bad lead, that they coasted into the playoffs. The Indians have as much, if not MORE talent then the White Sox, and they will be hungry and angry for mssing out of the playoffs.

 

Oh, the classic “angry because they missed the playoffs” argument. Show me where in baseball history that translates into victories. I mean, the rest of the NL East must be really really really furious enough by now, so surely the Braves will not win the division, right? Oh, as for the Sox “coasting” into the playoffs, the Sox went 18-12 in their last 30 games. The Indians? 19-11. Wow. They played a whole one game better than a team “coasting” and with nothing to play for.

 

Jenks also is really really dumb, and doesn't have the minor league #s to back up the #s he put up this year. Also, all that champagne can't be good for his "personal problems"

 

Oh crap, I forgot the newly added SAT and ACT components of the World Series next year. And the potential for a champagne induced hangover to last five months into the regular season.

 

Anyway…

 

You can argue that the pitching staff raised their level that is unlikely to be replicated, but the career year argument can cut both ways. Their hitting was awful for most of the year with not one hitter having a career year and Rowand and Uribe seeing precipitous drops in production. It's rather amazing that they won the World Series despite not one hitter doing anything extraordinary. Their hitting almost has to be better next year.

 

As for the pitching staff coming back to earth, it's certainly possible, but not entirely likely that it declines enough for the Sox to be looking at third place in the division. I would hope that you would at least see that Buehrle has been doing this for three years now, although his ERA may fluctuate. Ditto Garcia. And even when Jon Garland sucks, he still brings 200 innings and 12 wins. The fifth spot had around a 4.5 ERA and that wouldn't be hard to match or improve upon. The only real wild card is Jose, but it looks like he has it figured out and has improved confidence in an environment that he is comfortable in. Still, he's the biggest concern, but I just don't see him reverting to back to what he was in New York. His first half wasn't anything special and the Sox still got up 10 games. And in case of injury, they have six starting pitchers.

 

And the great thing about the Sox bullpen is the depth to compensate for down years. If Jenks fails, they have Hermanson and vice versa. If Politte has a down year, Vizcaino can fill his role. Marte had a crappy year (3.77 on the Sox is crappy), but could still cover for Cotts if he falters. It would take a bullpen meltdown of massive proportions for it at least to not be very good. It is two deep in every role.

 

And while it's nothing like what happened to the Cubs, which no team could have survived (well a non-Bobby Cox team,) the Sox had their fare share of injuries. Pods missed three weeks and even after that, he was never the same, which contributed to his crap September. El Duque had back problems, which forced McCarthy's first stint, which was generally woeful and that of course affected both the bullpen and starting staff. But most importantly, the White Sox's greatest power hitter and walk drawer missed 130 games. Even if you cut his projected numbers in half, Frank Thomas could have hit 40 Home Runs this year and tell me a lineup doesn't miss that. Would the Red Sox have done anything without Ortiz in the lineup? (A bit of hyperbole, but again, look at Thomas' numbers in limited time and with injury. He obviously wouldn't have hit for Ortiz's average, but his HR, RBI and walks would be right there. And this is someone who would be hitting fifth or sixth.)

 

Many of the same people talking about how the Sox are in a "weak" division are also touting the Indians as World Beaters? Guh? If they are so good, why couldn’t win a "weak" division this year? You could make the same exact argument that the Indians also got a career year out of its pitching staff as well and also will never replicate their how hot they got at one point just like the WS, so I don't see how they are all that different from the Sox and why some talk them up as an inevitability.

 

The weak division argument is getting old. If the Sox don't sweep the Indians the last weekend of the season, it has two representatives ala the NL Central and another team (the Twins) who had owned the division previously with a staff that includes the CY Young. The AL West is easily weaker with its 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th teams all having worst records their equivalent AL Central counterparts with the added bonus of only needing to be better than three teams to win the division. The AL East is probably better than the AL Central, but that's only because the Devil Rays are better than the Royals. And just maybe, the division was so "weak" because the White Sox tore it apart with the Indians having a record of 82-64 against teams not named the White Sox. As a whole, the American League is better than the National League as well.

 

The White Sox aren't a dynasty in the making, but the level of disrespect they face is amazing. The survived the AL bracket against three teams with payrolls of at least 20 million dollars more than them and then SWEPT the World Series.

 

I don’t think the White Sox will win the World Series next year either, but that’s because it is so hard to win in the first place. However, the Twins are done (finally payroll issues are catching up to them as they will lose a few pitchers to FA and might have to trade Hunter, while their minor league system has finally emptied) and the Tigers and Royals aren’t doing anything soon. It’s probably a two team race with the Indians, but one that is very winnable for the Sox. And if they win the division or WC, it’s been demonstrated that the pitching staff can carry them.

 

Finally, I don’t see how any reasonable person can make the statement that Cubs are closer to a World Series than the White Sox. Not on any level. To start with, the White Sox have a better team right now. On top of that, for the next two or three seasons, all the Sox probably have to do is be better than the Indians to have a chance, while the Cubs have to leapfrog the Cardinals and Astros, while holding off the Brewers.

 

And even for the foreseeable future, the White Sox have the better minor league system, according to every ranking publication that I can think of. On top of that, the Cubs revenue stream will stay the same, while the White Sox have already improved their ticket base for next season and beyond by thousands and that was even before they had won the championship and before they will probably and unfortunately raise ticket prices as most World Series teams do, so that should eventually translate into an increase in payroll. Organizationally, they have a manager and general manger with championship credentials on the same page and under contract for quite a while. The Cubs have Dusty Baker.

 

Finally, I put some credence into the theory that it’s harder to win when you play such an irregular home schedule that no other team has to deal with. It will eventually catch up to you. And we all know that that’s not likely to change anytime soon.

 

Better team now. Better future. Better management. Better playing conditions. Any team can catch lightning in a bottle like the 2003 Cubs or 2005 White Sox, but you have to capitalize when your chance comes and the White Sox look to have more chances in the next five years.

[jiml60]

Good points, Priorknowledge...boy, that depresses me.

[cubssox fan]

wow that post is very knowledgable and detailed.....A course a lot can change after free agency... Thats when we will really know who has the better chance to do what.

[Priorknowledge]

wow that post is very knowledgable and detailed.....A course a lot can change after free agency... Thats when we will really know who has the better chance to do what.

 

Oh, no doubt. Konerko would be a huge loss for the White Sox and their aren't many attractive replacements that would match his power. If they lose him, there has been a lot of talk that they will move Dye to first base and bring in an outfielder because it's easier to find a replacement there. It all comes down to Konerko. If they resign him, they are the clear favorites in the division. If they don't, the Indians are likely the better team . But keep in mind that the Indians also have to retain Millwood and Wickman to maintain where they are. But again, the Sox have the advantage of only really worrying about one team.

 

The Cubs don't have that advantage. They have to hope the Cardinals and Astros come back to earth, that they find a way to improve by more than ten wins and that the Brewers don't improve at all. Obviously, if they can pull off something like signing both Giles and Furcal, the Cubs are right back in it. But nothing good is coming to them unless Wood stays healthy and one of their marginal prospects steps up as fifth starter.

[SouthSideRyan]

Why are the White Sox the clear favorites with Konerko back? The Indians already had a better pythagorean record this year.

[Priorknowledge]

Why are the White Sox the clear favorites with Konerko back? The Indians already had a better pythagorean record this year.

 

Pythageowhat? I don't believe in that stupid Baseball America and Billy Beane crap. All I know is that the good teams find a way to win in real life. The White Sox finished six games better than the Indians this year and then went on to win the World Series. If both team return the exact same rosters, it stands to reason that the White Sox would be favored until the Sox demonstrate that they aren't as good or the Indians demonstrate that they are better.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Why are the White Sox the clear favorites with Konerko back? The Indians already had a better pythagorean record this year.

 

Pythageowhat? I don't believe in that stupid Baseball America and Billy Beane crap. All I know is that the good teams find a way to win in real life. The White Sox finished six games better than the Indians this year and then went on to win the World Series. If both team return the exact same rosters, it stands to reason that the White Sox would be favored until the Sox demonstrate that they aren't as good or the Indians demonstrate that they are better.

 

Do you know what Baseball America is?

[MPrior]

Why are the White Sox the clear favorites with Konerko back? The Indians already had a better pythagorean record this year.

 

Pythageowhat? I don't believe in that stupid Baseball America and Billy Beane crap. All I know is that the good teams find a way to win in real life. The White Sox finished six games better than the Indians this year and then went on to win the World Series. If both team return the exact same rosters, it stands to reason that the White Sox would be favored until the Sox demonstrate that they aren't as good or the Indians demonstrate that they are better.

 

I clued in to this in your first post, when, in claiming that the AL Central was tougher than the AL West, you cited the respective records of the 1-4 teams. Not that that's necessarily anti-"Billy Beane crap," but it is pretty simplistic, traditional reasoning. The difference in their records is probably due to greater competitiveness and strength within their division, not weakness; consider this: the only truly weak team in the AL West is the Mariners. The other three teams are all a significant threat, so there's no way for a team to inflate its record by playing a bunch of poor teams many times. The AL Central, by contrast, has the Royals (lowest of the low), the Tigers (who are a significant step up, but still only a little better than the Mariners), and, to a much much lesser extent, the Twins this year.

 

While I did think that your post was well thought out and very well informed, it's a bit presumptuous to dismiss anything because of some unfounded prejudice against it. And when that thing happens to be hard and well researched statistical data, it's arguably downright moronic to ignore it just because it's "Billy Beane crap."

[Priorknowledge]

consider this: the only truly weak team in the AL West is the Mariners. The other three teams are all a significant threat, so there's no way for a team to inflate its record by playing a bunch of poor teams many times. The AL Central, by contrast, has the Royals (lowest of the low), the Tigers (who are a significant step up, but still only a little better than the Mariners), and, to a much much lesser extent, the Twins this year.

 

It seems to me that you are calling the Twins a "weak" team or at least grouping them in with the other two teams. Shouldn't they be considered a "significant threat" since they were 4 games better than the Rangers, who you give that designation to?

 

While I did think that your post was well thought out and very well informed, it's a bit presumptuous to dismiss anything because of some unfounded prejudice against it. And when that thing happens to be hard and well researched statistical data, it's arguably downright moronic to ignore it just because it's "Billy Beane crap."

 

I am sorry, but this is where we part ways. It might be well researched and hard work to come up with statistical analysis like pythagorean record and projected win totals and stuff like that, but those people are wrong just as often as they are right, if not more so. There is no validity and reliability to any of these statistics. They just keep refining their models and assigning blame on underperformance and overperformance when their projections are wrong instead of just admitting its one big crap shoot. Show me any methodology that had the Astros or White Sox in the world series prior to the season.

 

What really worries me is how some real life baseball GMs are letting this stuff override common sense. For example, the Dodgers trading Lo Duca last year.

[MPrior]

consider this: the only truly weak team in the AL West is the Mariners. The other three teams are all a significant threat, so there's no way for a team to inflate its record by playing a bunch of poor teams many times. The AL Central, by contrast, has the Royals (lowest of the low), the Tigers (who are a significant step up, but still only a little better than the Mariners), and, to a much much lesser extent, the Twins this year.

 

It seems to me that you are calling the Twins a "weak" team or at least grouping them in with the other two teams. Shouldn't they be considered a "significant threat" since they were 4 games better than the Rangers, who you give that designation to?

 

While I did think that your post was well thought out and very well informed, it's a bit presumptuous to dismiss anything because of some unfounded prejudice against it. And when that thing happens to be hard and well researched statistical data, it's arguably downright moronic to ignore it just because it's "Billy Beane crap."

 

I am sorry, but this is where we part ways. It might be well researched and hard work to come up with statistical analysis like pythagorean record and projected win totals and stuff like that, but those people are wrong just as often as they are right, if not more so. There is no validity and reliability to any of these statistics. They just keep refining their models and assigning blame on underperformance and overperformance when their projections are wrong instead of just admitting its one big crap shoot. Show me any methodology that had the Astros or White Sox in the world series prior to the season.

 

What really worries me is how some real life baseball GMs are letting this stuff override common sense. For example, the Dodgers trading Lo Duca last year.

 

First, I did say the Twins were to a much lesser extent a weak team than the others. With regards to having a better record than the Rangers, my whole point was that their records were as much reflections of the divisions they were in as they were of their ability on the field.

 

And, to give an example of the sabermetricians' approach working, take a look at the most important sabermetric assertion: that the most important stat in terms of creating runs is OBP, while the second most important is SLG. Now look at the teams that scored a whole lotta runs this year. They are the teams with the highest OBPs and good slugging.

 

With regards to predicting the World Series, I have two things to say: one, Sabermetricians admit that their ability to gauge pitchers is less reliable than their ability to gauge hitters. Both the teams in the World Series were there because of their pitching. Secondly, a statistical approach relies on large sample sizes. The playoffs are a very, very small sample size, and so no one can accurately predict who will compete in the World Series at the beginning of the year. You challenge me to show you a sabermetrician who had the White Sox and the Astros in the World Series? I challenge you to show me anybody who had them in the World Series.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

What really worries me is how some real life baseball GMs are letting this stuff override common sense. For example, the Dodgers trading Lo Duca last year.

 

Yeah, that one really came back to bite them when they made the playoffs and Florida didn't. Lo Duca wasn't that great, and he's been downright bad since he went to Florida.

[imb]

thats just stupid baseball america crap.

[wolf stansson]

Also, all that champagne can't be good for his "personal problems"

Didn't he almost end his career because he got wasted and almost burned through his forearm with a lit cigar? That was him right?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Also, all that champagne can't be good for his "personal problems"

Didn't he almost end his career because he got wasted and almost burned through his forearm with a lit cigar? That was him right?

 

Something with him and putting fire to his pitching arm, I'm not sure of the specifics.

[Priorknowledge]

What really worries me is how some real life baseball GMs are letting this stuff override common sense. For example, the Dodgers trading Lo Duca last year.

 

Yeah, that one really came back to bite them when they made the playoffs and Florida didn't. Lo Duca wasn't that great, and he's been downright bad since he went to Florida.

 

The Dodgers, who were likely to make the playoffs even if they did nothing at the deadline, saw their pitching ERAs go through the roof as they went only 16-15 in September and October of that year. They then sleepwalked and lost to the Cardinals in four games. They certainly could have used their emotional leader. And I don't agree with the downright bad characterization, as Lo Duca a better year this past season than he did in 2002 or 2003.

[AAApittsburgh]

Pythageowhat?

Who gives a VORP?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

What really worries me is how some real life baseball GMs are letting this stuff override common sense. For example, the Dodgers trading Lo Duca last year.

 

Yeah, that one really came back to bite them when they made the playoffs and Florida didn't. Lo Duca wasn't that great, and he's been downright bad since he went to Florida.

 

The Dodgers, who were likely to make the playoffs even if they did nothing at the deadline, saw their pitching ERAs go through the roof as they went only 16-15 in September and October of that year. They then sleepwalked and lost to the Cardinals in four games. They certainly could have used their emotional leader. And I don't agree with the downright bad characterization, as Lo Duca a better year this past season than he did in 2002 or 2003.

 

The pitching was also 3rd in baseball for the month of August after LoDuca was traded. A catcher has less control over pitchers than you give them credit for. Whether or not Lo Duca was as productive in '02 or '03(His '02 was better than this year, his '03 similar) doesn't change the fact that he wasn't very productive, and it wasn't a huge blow to lose him.

[SouthSideRyan]

What really worries me is how some real life baseball GMs are letting this stuff override common sense. For example, the Dodgers trading Lo Duca last year.

 

Yeah, that one really came back to bite them when they made the playoffs and Florida didn't. Lo Duca wasn't that great, and he's been downright bad since he went to Florida.

 

The Dodgers, who were likely to make the playoffs even if they did nothing at the deadline, saw their pitching ERAs go through the roof as they went only 16-15 in September and October of that year. They then sleepwalked and lost to the Cardinals in four games. They certainly could have used their emotional leader. And I don't agree with the downright bad characterization, as Lo Duca a better year this past season than he did in 2002 or 2003.

 

Yeah and LoDuca's emotional leadership did lead the Marlins to get hot down the stretch and win it all....no wait their record was worse than the Dodgers.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

What really worries me is how some real life baseball GMs are letting this stuff override common sense. For example, the Dodgers trading Lo Duca last year.

 

Yeah, that one really came back to bite them when they made the playoffs and Florida didn't. Lo Duca wasn't that great, and he's been downright bad since he went to Florida.

 

The Dodgers, who were likely to make the playoffs even if they did nothing at the deadline, saw their pitching ERAs go through the roof as they went only 16-15 in September and October of that year. They then sleepwalked and lost to the Cardinals in four games. They certainly could have used their emotional leader. And I don't agree with the downright bad characterization, as Lo Duca a better year this past season than he did in 2002 or 2003.

 

So with LoDuca, the Dodgers weren't going to "sleepwalk" against the Cardinals (the best regular season team in 2004)?