Greg Hibbard

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 11:26 AM) 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.

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.

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.

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.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 11:40 PM) 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. QUOTE (Andrew @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 12:43 AM) 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.

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.

I would have taken it today. We are winning this game.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jun 17, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) The great 83 win season of 04? With the division we're in and the money our management has at its disposal, winning 2 whole division titles in this time frame is a massive failure. I used to be a huge KW fan and I certainly don't hate him even now but if we fail to once again make the playoffs and continue to make horrendous roster decisions then it's time to blow this thing up. Ok, so in 2004 you have a 65 million dollar payroll and season ending injuries to Ordonez and Thomas in June. And you expected them to do what, exactly?

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jun 17, 2011 -> 12:28 PM) I just really don't give a f*** about the 70's or 80's. Minus 05(and yes that counts for a lot but it doesn't give you a life time pass) this organization under Kenny and Ozzie has underachieved, it's that simple. The 70's and 80's don't mean a damn thing. 04 was underachieving? 08?

To recap what I said yesterday, what I find most striking is that a single 0-2 stretch, on the heels of a 22-13 stretch, can cause the doomsayers to completely rule this board. Caulfield, you say the "fault lines" between Pierre and Viciedo have emerged this month. Setting aside Pierre's defense (which would be interesting to compare to Viciedo), what about his .286 avg, .365 obp, 4/1 SB/CS did you take exception to over the course of May? Certainly his aggregate stats have been bad, but what would you have had Ozzie do after a single bad month - pull him? After a .286/.365 May, he's going to pull him? Certainly he should be on a much shorter leash given his aggregate stats and regression to slump form maybe NOW, but characterizing this as a massive length of time that Viciedo should have been considered feels revisionist, especially given how people conveniently doubletalk regarding the effects of rushing other folks to the majors. Yes, I meant commensurate.

Milkman - "we're better than we used to be, so we should be happy" is a straw man. I brought up the past to frame that the level of faithlessness around here was commiserate with that era, not this one, and to provide some context. That said, certainly, I have been pretty satisfied with the fact that our team competes nearly every season, which provides me with SOME FAITH in the leadership and organization as a whole. See, somehow lost in these three pages is my central point - that 90% of this board has absolutely zero faith in this organization, GM and manager. Really, think about this point for a second. It's astounding. Given their track record over the past 7 years (and in a larger sense two decades) - is is really appropriate in 2011 to have zero faith in this organization, GM and manager? Let's talk about the payroll for a second, because it was brought up. In 2004, the first year of Guillen's tenure, the Sox had a 65 million dollar payroll, injuries to their two best hitters, and still won 83 games. In 2005, they had the 13th highest payroll and won the World Series. They didn't have a top 5 payroll in 2010, they didn't even have a top 10 payroll in 2009! In 2008 they won the division. So even if we consider 2010 a "disappointment" compared to the payroll, less than half the seasons can be summed up disappointments. In 2011, the book is still out, as much as it seemingly makes some people seethe.

I wonder how many fans on this board were alive during the 70s and 80s when the White Sox won 1 division title in 20 years and usually finished in 3rd or 4th place with 70 something wins. Of the ones that were alive, I wonder if they can really get back in touch with what it felt like to be a fan of this team during that era, and put it in context. Do people realize the same White Sox organization has averaged 84 wins per season over the past 21 years, and 86 wins under the KW/OG regime? We're basically tied fourth in total wins since 1990 in the AL, behind New York, Boston and Oakland (Cleveland is about even with us, slightly ahead for now). During the OG era, I think we're 5th overall. During the past three "disappointing" years, we've averaged a "disappointing" 85 wins. Yes, our payroll has increased. Yes, the expectations have been higher recently. Yes, there have been some depressing results at times, particularly in our own division. Is it because we are agonizingly close? I hope that's the conclusion. Because if it's not, I have news for you: this is not a s*** organization. This organization is one of the best in the American League, year in and year out. You'd never know it from reading this board, though. It is astounding to me that there is absolutely no faith and no patience in this organization, this coach and this general manager. We've won 88+ games in 4 of the past six seasons. How many other teams have won 88+ games in four of the past six seasons? Four: Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Phillies. That's it. Not your precious Twins, not the big-spending, bumbling big-market Mets, not the Dodgers of lore, not the Cubs. 25 of 30 teams haven't done it. The White Sox have. And yet, everyone is seemingly as frustrated as if they have waited 20 years for a divisional title. This team has won a World Series recently, under this management's watch, and yet you would never know it from the faithlessness around here. Really, what gives? Sure, you can blather on about Guillen's lack of in-game managerial skills while conveniently overlooking his other intangibles (his ability to deflect media heat from his players, his ability to keep his team motivated (even allegedly cantankerous ones like AJP and Jurassic Carl), his ability to be hands-off when nobody would dare notice it. You can talk about KW's missed opportunities and poor trades and acquisitions, and ignore the stability, identity and pride he has provided. I wonder if people even recall how controversial the Konerko re-signing was around here. You need to look no further than 12 miles north if you want to know how difficult it is to win in this game consistently, even with a large payroll. Whether or not you believe in curses, that team has fielded young talent, experienced managers, veteran leaders. They can't win s*** to save their damned lives. I can cite 5 more examples of teams who spent it all seemingly correctly and can't win s*** anyway (The Mets come to mind, among others). The 2011 White Sox may have been disappointing thus far, but I can't really see them playing much worse, and I can't pin this on the organization, nor have I lost faith or patience. I will not blame OG/KW for Adam Dunn and Alex Rios having the WORST slumps of their respective careers, for Peavy's unforeseen injury problems, for Beckham turning from can't miss to Crede-lite, for Juan Pierre forgetting how to field. I will not blame this organization for a host of veteran relievers blowing the f*** up. I will not blame this organization for John Danks' uncharacteristic, bewildering numbers. Nearly everything has gone wrong at times, and we are 33-37 and 5.5 out. This is still a very talented team that's representative of a very good organization. I really wish other people believed that too.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 16, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) The Chicago White Sox: catching the Twins at the wrong time every year since 2002. From 2003-2008 we had a 55-55 record against the Twins. Considering those 6 Twin teams had an average of 88 wins, I'd say we did fairly well against them. Our worst seasonal record was 9-10 in any of those six years. We certainly caught the Twins just fine in 05 and 08. Many of those Twin teams were more talented than the Sox, this one is certainly not, IMO, which is why I mentioned that they caught us at the right time.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Jun 16, 2011 -> 03:40 PM) Yeah they went like 24-4 or some s***. Guess what? They still didn't make the playoffs. Yes, my point was not about the playoffs. My point was that the 25-5 White Sox won games they should have lost, often with their eyes closed, and could do no wrong, just like the recent 11-2 Twins. It had nothing to do with making the playoffs. Sometimes, when you catch a team at its hottest, it doesn't matter what you do, or whether or not you're more talented, or if you make the right coaching decisions. My point is that we might just be catching them at the wrong time, or at least that might play as much a part of it as this illusion of them "owning us" because of a recent 30-odd game sample size. 30-odd game sample sizes, or even 60-odd game sample sizes, tend to be problematic, in any context, for multiple reasons. Consider, for example, our 49-25 2005-2008 stretch against the Tigers. I'm sure not many here even think about it, but I'm sure a ton of Tigers fans know it by heart.

The 07 and 09 tigers won 88 and 86 games, the 08 indians won 81 games not to mention a few twin teams that won 87-94 games.

My point is that our record vs. the Al Central mirrors exactly our overall record over several years, despite anomalies from year to year. Our '07 team sucked, but raked against the Central. Our '09 team was disproportionately bad against the Central. Typically, smaller sample sizes have larger variances. And so on.

let me put a finer point on it: white sox record since '06: 451-430 (.511) white sox record vs central since '06 195-187 (.510) Yes, you're right, I certainly fail.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 16, 2011 -> 03:14 PM) No, you fail. What is the record since '06? They obviously dominated in '05. '06 - 40-36 '07 - 39-33 '08 - 44-29 '09 - 34-38 '10 - 32-40 '11 - 6-11 195-187 still over .500, despite the last 2+ years.

The White Sox basically owned the Central from 2005-2008 (yes, even in 07). The last 2.3 years have been bad, but it seems as though people have pretty short memories. EDIT: 04-08. Roughly 50 games over.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 16, 2011 -> 03:03 PM) Did anyone really say on here: season's over? Does J4L count, or is he on your killfile?

Considering that the White Sox play 37 of their next 41 games against teams not from Minnesota (with the 4 they do at home), and considering that they are .500 this season outside of those games despite playing like absolute dogs*** most of the time, and considering that they were 23 over against all other teams not named the Twins last season, and considering that many of those upcoming opponents are s*** teams, yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to abandon ship quite yet.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 16, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) Drops to .594 ball if you include just those 2 games. Oh, so merely a 97 win seasonal pace.

It's kind of unbelievable that a single 0-2 stretch against a division rival, on the heels of this team playing .630 ball for 35 games, has people reeling this much.

If you think the White Sox will somehow fall out of this race, quit kidding yourself. There's too much talent on this team and the division just sucks too much. That's mainly my point. Every also-ran team during the Williams era makes it to 1-3 games out sometime in August.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 16, 2011 -> 02:48 PM) Just gotta tip your cap, actually, let's just give them the wins automatically vs us. We can then have some extra offdays. I'm not tipping my cap at all. I don't think they're better than us. There are times when you catch a team when it is absurdly hot and every break goes their way. You'd think anyone who watched the June 2010 White Sox might know this.