The 90s and 00s Sox were basically the Braves of the same span

[Jack Parkman]

The Sox had their chances to take over this town from 1990-2008, the time in which they had the 4th or 5th best winning percentage in baseball, even with 4 losing seasons over that span, and one 90 loss season. What happened to the Sox is a worse Braves situation, where they were mostly good enough to finish 2nd or 3rd with 80+ wins. They won 90+ 5 times(90, 93, 00, 05, 06) and yet only made the playoffs 3 of those years. It can only be contributed to the randomness of baseball. they had some weird things go against them in playoff series (such as having their entire rotation blow out their arms in 2000)

 

They also made the playoffs one year while not winning 90. Some teams made the playoffs winning 85-89 games, the Sox had to win 94+ in order to make it 3x, failed to qualify twice when winning 90+ and only qualified 1 time out of 5 when winning 85-89 games. If you extend it to 2012, they qualified once out of 7 opportunities while winning 85-89 games. Don't forget the strike year in 94 where they would have probably at the very least been the first AL wild card team. over a 10 year span during the Sox run (98, 03, 07) the Cubs qualified 3x without winning 90 games over 162 (they technically won 90 in 98, but needed game 163 to do so)

 

My argument is, the randomness of baseball got the Sox during that span, and took some potentially very good Sox teams from the penthouse to the outhouse. We had a 19-23 year run of mainly very good baseball, and now, just like the Braves, we are on the other end of the stick. We have to just deal with it I guess.

EDIT: Qualifier-I am not saying that those Sox teams were as good as the Braves teams in the 90s-00s, I AM saying that they were pretty consistently good, but not great and that over a 20 year period only have 1 World Series to show for it, just like the Braves.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Elgin Slim

[chisoxt]

During this span, We had two distinctive cores of players with only Frank Thomas being the common thread. Hands down, the core from the 90s I believe was the best - Frank, Robin, Black Jack, Alex, Wilson, Ray, OneDog. Unfortunately, our farm system stopped producing (perhaps because the Chairman dumped Himes and Goldis who built the organization, and Reinsdorf refused to add top or even middle tier free agents until it was too late when we signed Albert Belle. And oh, there was that strike thing.....

 

[caulfield12]

Except the Braves made the playoffs 14 consecutive years....the White Sox have never even managed to go back to back in their much longer franchise history.

 

And Braves' fans have had a number of seasons to enjoy since that string ended as well.

 

Not to mention two new stadiums in the past 20 years.

[Hatchetman]

So over 13 years the Braves AVERAGED over 98 wins. The Sox won 98 games ONCE and averaged 85 wins.

[shysocks]

I'm still shaking my head about what could have been in 2003.

[GreenSox]

Except the Braves made the playoffs 14 consecutive years....the White Sox have never even managed to go back to back in their much longer franchise history.

Details, details.

[Buehrle>Wood]

I'm still shaking my head about what could have been in 2003.

That team on paper has to be the best team in franchise history. How they only managed to win 86 games is pretty amazing.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Buehrle>Wood

[Donaldo]

That team on paper has to be the best team in franchise history. How they only managed to win 86 games is pretty amazing.

 

That's why Jerry Manuel got fired.

[Lip Man 1]

That team on paper has to be the best team in franchise history. How they only managed to win 86 games is pretty amazing.

 

Not even close to being on paper the best team in franchise history.

 

And the reason they won only 86 games was because these were the guys the Sox used that year in the back end of the rotation:

 

Dan Wright, 15 games started, 1-7, 6.15 ERA

Josh Stewart, 5 games started, 1-2, 5.96 ERA

Mike Porzio, 3 games started, 1-1, 6.43 ERA

Neal Cotts, 4 games started, 1-1, 8.10 ERA

 

This was the season where Kenny Rogers was a free agent and the Sox were interested in him but when he asked for one million dollars to pitch for them, Kenny thought that was to much and said no. Rogers signed with the Twins, went 13-8, threw 195 innings and I think was the pitcher of record the night Minnesota clinched the division in Chicago.

 

Mark

 

 

[Panerista]

Not to mention two new stadiums in the past 20 years.

This is so ridiculous. Who needs two stadiums in 20 years?

[Buehrle>Wood]

Not even close to being on paper the best team in franchise history.

 

And the reason they won only 86 games was because these were the guys the Sox used that year in the back end of the rotation:

 

Dan Wright, 15 games started, 1-7, 6.15 ERA

Josh Stewart, 5 games started, 1-2, 5.96 ERA

Mike Porzio, 3 games started, 1-1, 6.43 ERA

Neal Cotts, 4 games started, 1-1, 8.10 ERA

 

This was the season where Kenny Rogers was a free agent and the Sox were interested in him but when he asked for one million dollars to pitch for them, Kenny thought that was to much and said no. Rogers signed with the Twins, went 13-8, threw 195 innings and I think was the pitcher of record the night Minnesota clinched the division in Chicago.

 

Mark

Then name one better. You simply can't come close finding a White Sox roster with the star power they had. Frank Thomas, Magglio Ordonez, Paul Konerko, Carlos Lee, Robbie Alomar, Carl Everett, Jose Valentin and Joe Crede in one lineup is insane. The bench was amazing too. Then you had Colon, Buehrle, Garland and Loaiza during his run for the Cy Young. The bullpen wasn't deep but you had Flash Gordon and Marte pitching in every other game while he was a top 3 reliever in the league.

 

Everyone is aware of the 5th starter struggles but what probably hurt them equally as much was Konerko and Buehrle having really down years. If those two have normal years, the division probably looks a lot different.

[Lip Man 1]

Then name one better. You simply can't come close finding a White Sox roster with the star power they had. Frank Thomas, Magglio Ordonez, Paul Konerko, Carlos Lee, Robbie Alomar, Carl Everett, Jose Valentin and Joe Crede in one lineup is insane. The bench was amazing too. Then you had Colon, Buehrle, Garland and Loaiza during his run for the Cy Young. The bullpen wasn't deep but you had Flash Gordon and Marte pitching in every other game while he was a top 3 reliever in the league.

 

Everyone is aware of the 5th starter struggles but what probably hurt them equally as much was Konerko and Buehrle having really down years. If those two have normal years, the division probably looks a lot different.

 

2006 team just off the top of my head. I'd also include the 1917 team, the 1964 and 1983 clubs. Again that's off the top of my head without a serious examination.

 

Mark

 

[Panerista]

2006 team just off the top of my head. I'd also include the 1917 team, the 1964 and 1983 clubs. Again that's off the top of my head without a serious examination.

 

Mark

Agreed on 2006. That team majorly underperformed. The first half of that season they looked like the best thing in baseball.

[southsider2k5]

2006 team just off the top of my head. I'd also include the 1917 team, the 1964 and 1983 clubs. Again that's off the top of my head without a serious examination.

 

Mark

 

The 2006 team won 90 games. The 1984 team is one that absolutely bombed.

[Rowand44]

I'm still shaking my head about what could have been in 2003.

I've said it plenty of times on this board but if it wasn't for 2005, that 03 team would still haunt me. They were absolutely loaded.

[Lip Man 1]

The 2006 team won 90 games. The 1984 team is one that absolutely bombed.

 

Who said anything about the 1984 team?

 

And the discussion centered around "on paper" the amount of talent on hand according to the original poster...not on actual results.

 

To wit, here is Buehrle > Wood's original comment: "That team on paper has to be the best team in franchise history."

 

Mark

Edited October 13, 2016 by Lip Man 1

[YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES!]

Was the '03 team really that good? I didn't follow baseball then.

Edited October 13, 2016 by ChiSoxFanMike

[Lip Man 1]

Was the '03 team really that good? I didn't follow baseball then.

 

They were good but in my opinion not great, certainly not the most talented team in Sox franchise history in my opinion.

 

Mark

 

[Rowand44]

Was the '03 team really that good? I didn't follow baseball then.

Talent wise they were loaded but apparently something just didn't mesh right. It was frustrating because if they snuck into the playoffs they would have been able to throw a cy young caliber Loaiza, Colon, Buehrle and Garland at people with 2 of the best relievers in baseball at the back end of the pen, not to mention all the big bats. Frustrating team.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Talent wise they were loaded but apparently something just didn't mesh right. It was frustrating because if they snuck into the playoffs they would have been able to throw a cy young caliber Loaiza, Colon, Buehrle and Garland at people with 2 of the best relievers in baseball at the back end of the pen, not to mention all the big bats. Frustrating team.

 

 

Yeah that team was fun. Magglio, Lee, and Rowand in the OF. Konerko, Crede, Valentin, Robby Alomar and Everett. Tom Gordon and Marte were both really good. 86-76. Just not enough

[shysocks]

Talent wise they were loaded but apparently something just didn't mesh right. It was frustrating because if they snuck into the playoffs they would have been able to throw a cy young caliber Loaiza, Colon, Buehrle and Garland at people with 2 of the best relievers in baseball at the back end of the pen, not to mention all the big bats. Frustrating team.

I'd be remiss not to mention Billy Koch.

 

The team had good hitters and a pitching top 6 that could probably have matched up with anyone. The rest of the pitching staff was basically dead weight.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I think the '04 team was better on paper. A lot of the pitching staff struggled that year but they looked good going into the season. The offense was just sick though. They finished 3rd in runs scored and 1st in homers despite losing an MVP level Frank Thomas for 80+ games and Magglio Ordonez for 100+ games. I think if Frank and Maggs didn't go out with injuries there was a chance of them being back to back champs. They had their pitching woes but they had so many horses in that lineup that they could have made some noise in the playoffs (which was pretty much the standard of early '00s White Sox baseball).

[lasttriptotulsa]

Who said anything about the 1984 team?

 

And the discussion centered around "on paper" the amount of talent on hand according to the original poster...not on actual results.

 

To wit, here is Buehrle > Wood's original comment: "That team on paper has to be the best team in franchise history."

 

Mark

 

The '84 team was basically a carbon copy of the '83 team that nearly made the World Series plus the addition of Tom Seaver. Yet they somehow managed to lose 25 more games than the '83 team. They very much fit the definition of a very talented team that amounted to nothing.

[southsider2k5]

The '84 team was basically a carbon copy of the '83 team that nearly made the World Series plus the addition of Tom Seaver. Yet they somehow managed to lose 25 more games than the '83 team. They very much fit the definition of a very talented team that amounted to nothing.

 

Bingo. Coming off a 99 win season too.

[JoshPR]

Kittle struggled that year, So did lammar hoyt and Britt Burns was pretty much injured. Bannister went 14-11 but his ERA was a high for that time 4.48. It was Greg Luzinskis final year.

 

90 was a surprise year. They didnt have much power but they ran a lot. If baseball would have been back then like todays format the would have won the central. They won 94 and still ended 9 games out as oakland won 103. In 91 they would have won the wild card