Greg Hibbard

QUOTE (flavum @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) If the Sox come up short, I'm going to look at the collective choke of not being able to go 25-20 the final 45 games for 90 wins. So, go 9-4 and we're all good. Because the preceding 16-7 stretch before the final 45 didn't overvalue this team at all, right? The final 45 games of the Sox' schedule also features 21 games against teams that are as of today 10 or more games over .500. Of the other 24 games, 12 of them are on the road. Of the 12 home games against teams that are not 10 or more games over .500, 9 of them are against divisional opponents. They also have 3 days off in the last 48 days of the season - one of which was a rainout where they were at the ballpark waiting all night. How many easy games do you think this team has really had, recently? Are we also gonna blame De Aza, Dunn and Konerko for being injured while we're at it

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:24 PM) 16-12 in August 9-9 in September That's 4 over .500 since July, which IMO says more bad about the Tigers than good about us Since our last 6 game win streak Aug 20-26 we lost 3 of 4 to Baltimore, went 2-5 against the Tigers and 2-4 against the Royals. The only thing we've done right is go 5-1 vs. the Twins over that span. But yeah, great team here. I guess I'm just a pessimist. prior to August 56-47 = .543 winning percentage August 1st on 25-21 = .543 winning percentage .543 winning percentage = 88 win season. Exactly what drop off is there from whatever you expected I also like the way you conveniently disregard some sort of dropoff/statistical correction to variance after a 6 game winning streak

I'm sorry, I'm just not going to feel badly about a week with zero days off where we went 5-2 with 6 road games, and the only home game being a crucial win against detroit. That's just flat out insane. I chalked up two road losses to the royals before the series. I think we win the series 2-1 in anaheim, go 4-3 at home and 2-1 in cleveland. 8-5, baby. Just do it.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) Cleveland played out of their minds, the Sox never faded. We won 99 games that year. This year we'll be lucky to win 88. Um, that's delusional. The Sox nearly choked the division away. We were on pace to win a lot more than 99. I remember the atmosphere on this board quite well.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:09 PM) The Sox are great at playing on a high. All good teams are supposed to be that way & even a lot of bad teams are like that. The problem is we have trouble coming back from the lows, and when the pressure is on it it's even worse. You always hear Hawk talk about how important it is for baseball players to have a short memory & not to take their gloves to the plate or bats to the field; we seem to take the events of a past series with us, and when we get in a tough spot, we can't relax and so we try to do too much. Perfect example was last night. We won 5 in a row and then drop a game to KC. Last night we had the chance to take the series & start a new streak while picking back up that game the Tigers took. KC only scored 4 runs all game & they gave us 3. That's only 2 runs we need to score on our own to win, and we can't do it. Now, instead of heading into Anaheim to play a tough, extremely talented team on the road on a high, we have to right the ship there. That's the sign of a fading team, it's just that Detroit is also fading, and if you're an honest outside observer, neither team should be good enough to force either the Yankees or Baltimore to play a WC game. Let me get this straight. This team just had a 5 game winning streak against three different divisional opponents, featuring 4 road games and zero days off... and losing two road games in a row to a divisional team directly after that is a sign of a "fading team"? Whatever, man. I guess nothing can convince you otherwise.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) The inability to beat KC & Detroit (and Baltimore also) pretty much removes that "resiliency" tag that has been on the team most of the year. And yes, it's true that everyone is 0-0 when postseason play starts, but given the way we can enter a series we're supposed to win already mentally defeated, does anyone really believe these guys can come back from an 0-1 deficit in the ALDS, or even win a second game after taking the first? This club is much more 2008 back-into-the-playoffs Sox than 2005 great baseball team Sox, and the Sox play under pressure shows it. You mean under the pressure, for example, to win the last game of the year against Detroit? You mean the '05 team that let a 15 game divisional lead dwindle down to a point that game 159 was still meaningful? I think people forget that the '05 team was exactly 1 game over .500 in August and September combined. This White Sox team is 3 games over .500 since August 1st - and likely to be 5-6 games over at season's end for the last two months. I can't remember a team I can say that about.

I wonder if people look at our schedule and also say "well, there's a game we should have lost but didn't" with the same zeal I guess we're too busy with the "worst. 2 game lead. ever." rhetoric

QUOTE (flavum @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) Maybe you can say, the Sox went 14-4 against the Twins and 6-12 against the Royals, and that's baseball. Stuff happens. When it comes to a division where high-80's wins it, and you go 6-12 against that team, you pretty much blew it by losing to them. When I set up the Division thread (Road to 91 wins), I had the Tigers winning two more games than the Sox in the final 13 games. So right now I have them both going 88-74. Hopefully the Twins and Royals help us out, and the Sox win tonight. But I don't think the entire season is all about how they play these final two weeks. It's a collective thing, but how you play against teams in your division, particularly the one chasing you or ahead of you does matter because they're twice as important as the rest of the games. With respect to the division, Id' say playing over .500 is the desired result, and we will play well over .500 if we handle the Indians. In fact, we'll have a winning percentage that hopefully nearly mirrors our overall winning percentage. Divisional opponents see you more often, are more familiar with your strengths and weaknesses and generally play you tougher. Is it surprising that one or two of them would disproportionately handle you better? Not to me. Every year this happens with one team or another. Some say the '03 Tigers were allegedly responsible for us being in the position we were in that year by going 7-11 against us despite a 43 win season. I prefer to say that it was the final 5 games against the Twins that we lost. The Twins for years owned us. It's the nature of divisional play. We're 34-32 and I expect us to be 38-34 at season's end. A .530 divisional record is perfectly acceptable. There are examples of teams who are contenders who do great against their division, examples of teams that will fall short and struggled against divisional teams, but also examples of teams who struggled and it doesn't matter (Texas, Oakland, for example). I agree and disagree. It's about how you play for the entire year for every team - except the ones who control their own destiny in a playoff race in late September. For those teams, it comes down to the final few games where that team controls their own destiny. I don't see how anyone could have any other perspective. If the Sox win an above average number of divisional games they'll win their division.

btw Cali I also feel pretty good. I don't think Detroit will go better than 9-4 and I like our chances to go 8-5.

QUOTE (flavum @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 11:45 AM) Sox went 6-12 against the Tigers and Royals. If they lose the division, of course it has a lot to do with losing to these teams. No, it doesn't. Changing those results changes every other result in the season as well. They completely control their own destiny and the only teams standing in their way are not named the Royals or the Tigers.

I'm sick of people saying "not beating KC will be the reason we lost this division" if we end up second. We're 5-13 against KC and done with them (and Detroit), and we're 2 games up in the division. If you want to cherry pick the 18 KC games out of the schedule, you'd have to change every other result as well, because after certain losing streaks/games the team got up/down for the next one. It's akin to saying "if we had that hit he would have scored". You can't cherry pick like that. Maybe if we won 2/3 in the trip to KC we have a let down somewhere else. This season will be won/lost @Anaheim, vs. TB/Cle and @Cle.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 18, 2012 -> 10:39 AM) Those are the percentages to make the playoffs via AL Central or Wild Card. For the division, Sox are at 81.6 (82.3-0.7) and Tigers are at 18.4 (21.6-3.2) But the East and West add to 100, and there's a separate WC section below, no?

82.3 + 21.6 = 103. 9?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 17, 2012 -> 04:41 PM) But I thought we lost in the third inning? f***ing game thread drama queens. Guilty!

Another comforting thing: Detroit's road record is now 34-41. KC and Minny might be the last two series on the schedule, but those two are road series, and the Tigs are 2-4 vs. those two teams away from Comerica in the second half.

What a huge win.

bump - edited original post grid.

I stick with Jones forever.

I just can't watch the rest of this game. Just can't watch. Just too angry. Just too f***ing angry.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Sep 17, 2012 -> 10:30 AM) Detroit is 14-9 on the season against Minnesota and Kansas City. It's good, but it's not bonkers. On top of that, Minnesota's lineup is healthy again and they can be play pretty tough. Kansas City is also 24-20 in their previous 44. Those games are not a cake walk. The Sox will need to take care of business today, but losing is not the end of the world. I think yesterday's loss was the end of the world for the tigers, possibly. If the Sox had lost a game that exact way, people would be jumping off the cliff here. a win today by the Sox would probably be the death blow.

Why is De Aza out again?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 14, 2012 -> 01:19 PM) Not really, because if the Sox can't beat a pitcher named Esmerelda with an ERA over 9 with any of their starting pitchers, then they don't deserve to win this division. Again, nobody "deserves" to win any division. The team that ends up with the most wins wins it. St. Louis didn't "deserve" to win the 2006 NLC with 83 wins by your reasoning, either.

Beyond this debate about the meaning of the word momentum, can anyone else agree that not facing Verlander is a better thing anyway?

Why not pitch Quintana on Monday on just one extra day rest? The way he handled the Tigers I'd like to see him again instead. I'd go Sale/Liriano/Peavy/Quintana. Peavy will still be on 5 days of rest, Quintana has an extra couple.

Another reason that I love missing Verlander is because he is way more likely to take us away from their 'pen. We can get into that pen early against anyone else, IMO