Greg Hibbard

Tigers/Yanks series needs to have one less game and their current record is 59-50.

QUOTE (flavum @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 11:58 AM) I'm bumping that 89 for the second wild card up to 90. I think the Sox, Tigers, Angels, Rangers, and Yankees will all win over 90 games. Why do you think the Angels win 90? They've been 9-12 since the break - and they have a brutal last 6 weeks of their schedule. I can't see them going 11 over down that stretch. Every series is either on the road or at home vs. a contender from late August on, except for 1 september series against SEA.

HE HUNG IT HE HURT IT WE NEED IT

QUOTE (YASNY @ Aug 6, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) A very nice, well thought out analysis but I'm going to put it in a different perspective for you. This Tigers are 1.5 games back with 2 months of baseball left. .620 ball or not, they have to make up an average of one measly game a month. Thanks for the kudos. You're right, but here's the thing - they haven't even been able to make up 1 measly game, despite playing BETTER than .630, over the past 45 days.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Aug 6, 2012 -> 01:03 PM) I really don't look at it like one stretch of games or another is key to winning the division. I think that the key is going to be playing a little better than 500 ball against everyone, in other words, just keeping up the same pace. But we must beat Detroit when we play them. Unless we totally start sucking against everyone else the Detroit games are going to decide the division. If we do start sucking against everyone else, the Detroit games won't matter anyway. Whether we are ahead of Detroit when we play them, or behind them, really the only thing that matters is beating Detroit. Well, certainly it helps if you're keeping pace when your main rival is pretty hot, and that was my main point. Kind of quietly (mostly because they had a REALLY hot stretch of 15 games and then lost a few in a row), the Tigers have put together a very nice extended run. The Tigers also finished last year with that remarkable 40-17 clip, which apparently informed everyone to expect it again (the ones that feel the Tigers still prevail especially). I think people are forgetting one crucial detail - The Tigers treaded water at .500 for the better part of three months leading up to that. It's one thing for a team to get really hot over a 57 games stretch like that, after mostly treading water. However, the Tigers have already had a 24-14 stretch, and are still in second place. They have a lot more work to do at a similar clip to take the lead, and potentially put themselves in a position to win this division. The White Sox clearly aren't fading or going away - and are coming up on a stretch where they play most of their games at home. For Tigers fans, it's gotta be coming up on "what do we have to do" - after all, you swept the Sox at home and are 10 over in the last 38 - and you've made up exactly .5 games. It's quite likely that it will take 90, 91, 92 games to win the AL Central. For the Tigers to win 91 games, they would have to go 57-35 from June 22nd through October 1st. The Tigers are a talented team, but I just don't see this roster playing .620 ball for the last 92 games this season. They just aren't capable of being that consistent. The league, as I've pointed out in the above standings, seems to also have more competitive teams than last year.

OAK 24-13 DET 24-14 CHW 23-14 NYY 22-16 SEA 21-17 TEX 19-17 LAA 19-19 MIN 19-20 BOS 18-21 TB 18-21 TOR 17-21 BAL 17-21 KC 14-25 CLE 13-26 This underscores a few things about this season that aren't immediately apparent from the regular standings: 1) The AL is chock full of teams that can play very competitive baseball for an extended stretch of the season. For the last several weeks, it seemed as though the Sox were either: playing a contender, playing a team hovering around .500, or playing a road series at a division opponent that was going to potentially give us trouble. Even though Cleveland has lost 9 in a row, they obviously played very good baseball through the end of July. Even Seattle and Minnesota have been playing better ball of late, as these standings indicate. KC has obviously slipped (they way they usually do midseason), but that's not really a surprise. There really aren't any "easy" stretches to anyone's schedule recently, and the fact that our Sox have gone through it as one of the best teams is truly remarkable. 2) Contrary to what I've heard many pundits say (Detroit just can't seem to get anything really GOING for an extended stretch), the Tigers have been the second best team in the AL since late June, just behind the A's, and our White Sox have hung RIGHT WITH THEM. That's very encouraging for our long term prospects. 3) The A's series is IMO one of the most important series this month. If you asked me to pick 4 games I'd like to win of these 6, I'd choose to lose 2/3 to the Royals and sweep the A's. If we can do some damage to their fragile playoff psyche, we might send them into a tailspin that renders the second WC out of the Tigers/Sox loser. Although we'd certainly prefer to win the division, it would be nice to have that as a safety valve.

It seems like we always say "should do this" or "should do that" about individual series, but it rarely plays out that way IMO. I said going in I'd be fine with a 6-3 homestand and I'll stick with that.

yikes.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Aug 3, 2012 -> 09:17 PM) 32,060. What is that, about 5-6k short of capacity? I'd be thrilled with numbers like that from now on.

Seat chart on whitesox.com already showing that the lower deck is almost completely unavailable and the upper is at least half sold....

I thought it was a terrible decision at the time, so I was pretty wrong.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 1, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) August 1st, 2010 White Sox 59-45 Twins 59-46 1/2 GB We didn't surrender the lead for good that year until AUG 12, but then it REALLY got away from us like in a week, it was over. You didn't think we were still in it on this date? I sure did. http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings/_/date/20100906

Since losing 5 series in a row (including four interleague!), the Sox have gone 8-2-1 in the last 11 series, only losing @bos and @det. 5 of 6 against texas, 7 of 9 against minny (inc. 4 road wins), who always plays us tough, 2/3 against TOR who has given us fits in recent years, splitting @nyy....other than those two bad series the sox have been stellar the last 40 days.

It is indeed all very good.

QUOTE (35thstreetswarm @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 02:18 PM) Is your "argument" your attempt to take a joke about Yankee fans and "refute" it point by point like a formal logic problem? Yes, 162-game seasons, followed by successive seven-game series between professional baseball teams, are unlike a large child wrestling a small child in many ways. Nailed it! But back to the main point - the Yankees in recent years (like the last 10 or so) have had some MASSIVE financial advantages. Staggering, really. Especially back in the mid-2000s their payroll often doubled that of even teams near the top of the list, and absolutely dwarfed the bottom half. While that top-level gap has narrowed in the last few years, I'm still amazed they only got one WS out of all that spending. Personally, I would not have much fun watching a team like that, even though they are often in contention, because deep down I'd know they really should win given the way they throw their financial weight around. Now the Yankees of earlier eras? (Including those late '90s teams that didn't have that massive a financial advantage)? A totally different story, and the reason why the Yankees will probably always be on top in terms of overall organizational cachet. I wholeheartedly agree that I nailed it. I'm not sure why you brought up such a convoluted "joke" in the first place. I'm not amazed at all that they only got one WS out of all that spending. Spending money like that only puts you in a position to win. They were 1 win away in both 01 and 03, so by winning 2 more games they could have had 3 instead of 1.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 11:16 AM) After adding the two biggest free agents on the market. Funny how that works. I'm not entirely sure what your argument is, here. My argument: 1) 220 lb wrestlers beat 115 lb wrestlers 100% of the time. 2) No advantage in a seven game series is big enough in any major sport to guarantee that team will win. 3) therefore, the analogy sucks. Also, the Yankees give themselves a big advantage, but they also make excellent personnel decisions that have little to do with that financial advantage. I don't really understand how someone couldn't concede that that last point had SOMETHING to do with their success.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 10:44 AM) You mean the Heat who made it to the NBA finals? And lost. Like the Yanks lost the 01 and 03 series. That analogy makes it seem automatic

QUOTE (35thstreetswarm @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) Oh, come on, I'm just messing with you. OK - for the era of my fandom (roughly the last 25 years) I'd have to go with Braves and Cardinals in terms of sustained organizational excellence not propelled by outsized financial advantages. Twins and A's still have to be in there for results achieved vs. resources expended, despite recent down years. The Yankees have it in terms of overall organizational cachet, of course, but I can't credit them much in recent years. Given the magnitude of their financial advantage I'm actually surprised they haven't won many more titles. I have to think rooting for the Yankees would be a joyless exercise - sort of like enrolling your 6'2 220 lb. 10th grader in a 7th grade wrestling league full of 115 pounders, then watching matches the from the stands knowing everyone else is rooting against him/you. When he loses it's a shock and disappointment. When he wins it's like "wow. great. congratulations. dick." That's a terrible analogy. Seven game series with teams aren't sure things by any stretch of the imagination. The Yankees have made it as far as the LCS about half the time in the past 15 years. That's a remarkable clip, financial advantage or no. You still have to perform. Ask the 2010-11 Miami Heat.

Any more info on de Aza or ramirez other than "they're out of the lineup"?

Winning in the game of major league baseball means more than playing within the lines. It means spending money wisely within the rules. There are lots of very wealthy sports owners (as well as non sports owners) everywhere. If you want to apologize for the other poor wealthy 29 owners that they couldn't possibly compete with the big bad Yankees, go right ahead. And yes, this is my "who you crappin'" for the week

The cubs have tried to do the same thing the Yankees did for years, so did the Red Sox. Combined, those teams have 2 championships in the past 1 million years.

Southsider, seriously, what's the point of discussion if you are going to set arbitrary guidelines to account for what you don't like about what the game of baseball has patently allowed since the beginning?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 01:40 PM) What about Arod, CC, Tex, Burnett, Soriano, Kuroda, Irabu, Giambi, etc? That is just scouting, right? There's not a player that has had a greater impact on their championships than Mariano Rivera, and it's completely the result of the Yankee scouting and player development. Giambi - no championships. A-Rod - a contributing player to one championship. Many others are contributing players to one or a couple of championships. Rivera - 5 championships. Jeter - 5 championships.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 01:28 PM) The Mets aren't in the conversation because they don't generations of fans the way the Yankees do. They came about in the 60's. Even when the Yankees were a "joke" they were still the highest revenue and most valuable team in all of baseball. On their worst day they have more opportunity than any other major league franchise on its best day. Those opportunities mean everything. What about Jeter, Rivera and Stanton? Just money, right? That's all it ever is? GMAFB.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 27, 2012 -> 11:40 AM) It has nothing to do with the product. It has everything to do with being the original New York City team, in the biggest market in the USA. And yet the Dodgers and Giants both moved despite competing with the Yankees for that biggest market in the USA. The Mets have the same biggest market in the USA and can't even come close. The Cubs have a rabid fanbase, seemingly endless pockets, and the support of a syndicated television station that grew into a national phenomenon (well before the YES network) and they can't even win ONE title. Let's take this example. In 1986, the Yankees were about to head to the doldrums and the Mets rose to the top of the world, literally. 25 years later, the Yankees rebuilt themselves to the tune of 5 more World Titles (including one over the Mets). Why? Because they had deep pockets but also made smart decisions. Like it or not, Jeter is a player out of their system, and 5 teams passed on him (including the 1st pick Astros, whose scout resigned over them passing on it) and they were responsible for grooming Rivera, as well - a "fringe prospect" when they found him. They made many, many smart personnel decisions. Guys like Mike Stanton. I don't think people recall just how much of a joke the Yankees were from about 1988-1994. I was following baseball rabidly in this era (these were my JHS and HS years and I had nothing better to do). The Yanks were a joke - to the extent that they were joked about on the early Seinfeld episodes as being a joke. People treat the Yankees now like they were some self-fulfilling prophecy that occurred because OF COURSE THEY HAD TO. No, they spent money but did so wisely, as well. The Cubs did the same thing but have nothing to show for it - NOTHING.