Greg Hibbard

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 03:31 PM) I swear to God, if the pitching staff suffers in AJ's absence (while he hits about .175 with Dunn's K rate) and we finish 7-8 GB in the division and someone says "well, we'd have won the AL Central if we wouldn't have lost Pierzynski," and that is used as yet another excuse for bringing back Ozzie and KW, I'll.... The Indians and Twins have each had 8-10 more major injuries than the Sox this year. You're forgetting about Adam Dunn's brain injury and Alex Rios' heart injury. Perhaps the Wizard of Oz will fix them....

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) 87 or even 86 MIGHT get a team in a game 163, but it could go the other way where even 89 or 90 is necessary. So which team, the recently .500ish Tigers or the recently .450ish Indians is going to go on a .550ish tear to win those 89 or 90 games? I just don't see it. 87 wins at most wins this division.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) Sample size isn't huge, but Flowers has a 3.00 cERA. We know we can't lose anything arm-related. And Tyler knows how to take a walk and hit for power. I really don't think this is much of a loss. We do lose some leadership with AJ, that's for sure, but in tangible production, this isn't that big a loss. I agree with this. Pierzynski is a huge liability against speed teams (particularly the Twins).

QUOTE (flavum @ Aug 16, 2011 -> 11:48 AM) 28-14, including 4-2 vs the Tigers and 7-4 vs the Indians. Sox do that, playoffs. If not, going to need a lot of help. Since June 14th, the Tigers are 27-27. Since May 4th, the Indians are 9 games below .500. Since May 6th, the White Sox are 11 games over .500 Yes, both the Tribe and Tigs have some easy teams on the schedule. This is the same Tribe team that just split 8 games with Baltimore and Minnesota, and lost two of three at home to KC (sound familiar)? This is the same Tigs team that suddenly has problems winning series against the Sox, and also doesn't have a winning streak longer than three games. Given all that, I seriously don't get why people think the division winner is going to have any more than 85-86 wins this year, tops.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 15, 2011 -> 11:20 AM) I like what you have brought this season GH. Its hard to remain optimistic while watching this team Thanks. I find it very hard to remain optimistic as well.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 15, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) LOL. Nothing like complimenting an organization on their mediocrity. What exactly are we referring to as mediocrity, when it comes to this organization? If we're referring to this season, given the statistical hurdles that have been set in our path, I'm not sure what this organization as an organization could have done. We have a worse hole at DH than in '10. We have many positional players expected to produce simply not doing so. Is this a failing of the organization, to expect players to produce at career norms, or even slightly below average? Really, what the f*** could you do? If we'd had even slightly disappointing numbers from Dunn and Rios (.230, normal power) we'd be comfortably in front by probably 7-8-9 games. If we're referring to the White Sox long term, then I'll point this out again: over the last 21 seasons, only three teams have won more total games in the American League than the White Sox. I'll bet you can guess two of them. The third is Cleveland. If we finish ahead of the tribe by 2-3 games we'll be in third place. Other than the Yankees and Red Sox, I'm having a hard time coming up with an AL franchise I'd rather be rooting for over the past couple of decades. We're the only team to win a World Series in this division since its founding. I suppose the Angels and Blue Jays have had good segments during that span, and the Twins have been successful as an organization as well. The Tribe have gone to many playoffs, but the big one has eluded them. The Rays, Orioles, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers, Tigers and Royals? Many hollow playoff appearances and a lot of lost seasons. We're doing something right as an organization, which is why we won a World Series. I know people desperately want to write it off as a fluke, but every year this team seems to compete, no matter which players disappoint us. When everyone performs above our expectations, we win the division and put ourselves in position to go further. When everyone performs even well below expectations, we still compete. Pardon me if I find value in that.

Many are obviously disappointed with the results of this season thus far, and I want to be clear about something: I am amongst those who are disappointed. I consider this season (thus far) to be the third most disappointing season in the past 10 ('03 and '01 are worse). I had high hopes for a 90-100 game winner, a relatively easy AL Central crown, and a second World Series shot for some of my favorite players. Obviously, many of those hopes are on the ropes. However, consider this: Wouldn't have been just easier for this team to fold up and quit after its horrible 33 game start? Wouldn't it have been totally justified for Ozzie, Kenny or anyone else to throw Pierre, Dunn and Rios under the bus and start pointing fingers? Wouldn't it have been easy for us to dump everyone possible on July 31st, and blame the fans for not coming out and supporting the team? This isn't what happened. The team stood pat, kept things in the clubhouse professional with respect to Dunn and Rios' struggles, and battled back for the past 87 games. Now, they are at .500, 4 games back, and poised to at least give us a finish worth talking about. It might not be ideal, but they didn't quit. I look across town and see Carlos Zambrano turning another forgettable Cubs campaign into another laughable sideshow circus, and I think "thank god we have players they keep it between the lines and comport themselves professionally in our clubhouse". I think "thank god we have baseball people in front office positions". I don't like our manager all of the time, but I do think he is at least a mixed bag that has some good (if not intangible) qualities, and I believe he acts professionally on the field. If we didn't have a strong organization, I think we would have easily succumbed to a freefall. We wouldn't even be close to 4 games back right now, and we would be set up to struggle through an Indians type overhaul/rebuild with bad choices. I know many people on this board don't think that's a bad thing, but I do. I think this team can and will compete next season, and I think we are set to make a run here. I also think that given the kind of contracts we are stuck with, we'd better damn compete. If we can just get over this last hump, get over .500, and get it within three games, this season might actually turn a late corner. However, regardless of what happens, I'm happy a root for a team that battles back despite the setbacks it has had, even if this season comes up far short of expectations. Silver lining, I suppose.

yet another must-win.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Aug 11, 2011 -> 03:02 PM) Since 1996 the ALC division winners have averaged 92 wins. The ALC division winner has never had less than 86 wins. I would be willing to bet the ALC winner will not have 86 or more wins this season. Also, the AL aggregate records of the past ten years are somewhat informed by AL dominance in interleague play. The AL-NL record this season was 131-121, which is far more even than it has been in previous seasons.

Let's talk about how much "over .500" would have meant to the 1994 american league western division champion if the strike had not happened. 1st place was 52-62 on August 11th. Twice in the past ten years one of the NL divisions has had a barely over .500 team win a division. In the NFL, the NFC West from last season comes to mind as well.

QUOTE (flavum @ Aug 11, 2011 -> 01:14 PM) Yeah, the games back column says one thing, but I don't think you're in it unless you're over .500. Until they get there, it really means nothing. The Sox will finish this season over .500; I don't really understand why people don't believe this. Yes, they have seemingly stumbled recently. They were over .500 for the month of May, over .500 for the month of June, at exactly .500 for the month of July, and are at exactly .500 in the month of August. They are over .500 in the second half, even with a 6 game home losing streak. They will be over .500 by the end of August. That will take care of itself. GB is everything. Sorry to disagree with you.

QUOTE (flavum @ Aug 11, 2011 -> 08:33 AM) The Sox have to go 8-2 the next ten. Win tonight, and come home and go 7-2 like a championship team does at home. If the Sox do that, then they've earned their way back into the race. They are currently in the race. 4 games is nothing. If they go 6-4 and Cleveland and Detroit both go 5-5 in their next ten, the Sox are still in the race and only three games out, and it's a totally believable result given the track record of all three teams. Cleveland and Detroit split their 4 games, Sox win 2/3 against Cle, Cle wins 2/3 against Min. Det splits the Min and @Bal series 3-3. Sox win today, win 2/3 vs KC and lose 2/3 vs. Tex. 6-4 for the Sox, 5-5 for Det and Cle. Sox still in the race.

A win tonight and I really think we'll have something on our hands here.

One thing that is very encouraging is Detroit's run differential. If we believe Pythagorean W/L has any value, then the Sox and Det are just about dead even.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 9, 2011 -> 10:45 AM) It's better than not winning the division and him only throwing 220 innings. See Milwaukee in 2008. Not if your pitcher has dead arm the next season I don't care how superhuman Verlander seems, the aggregate innings are going to have an adverse effect on him eventually.

what's the point of winning a division if the only starting pitcher you have worth a damn in the postseason has 250+ innings under his belt by October 1st

Bear in mind that technically speaking, Cleveland controls its own destiny to a far greater extent than the Sox, so Det will have to pick its poison.

The hottest I could see the Sox getting is winning 29 of their last 48. That would put them at 85-77.

It's really about those six head-to-head games. Both teams have pretty easy schedules. Anything less than 4-2 and it's over. 4-2, 5-1, or 6-0 and we have a really good chance of being close.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 9, 2011 -> 08:03 AM) 5 GB now. Sox go 2-1, DET goes 1-2, that would only cut it to 4 I suppose even my optimism isn't enough to make the mathematically impossible possible

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 9, 2011 -> 07:49 AM) Fister vs. Masterson AT CLE Porcello vs. Jimenez Verlander vs. Carmona. Indians will take 2/3. We have to take 3/4 from the Orioles. That puts us at 4 GB heading into the weekend. Wouldn't we be 3 GB in that scenario?

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 8, 2011 -> 02:55 PM) I don't get your post. They are 4-5 games within what many expected? The team is under .500 and all-in. It has been totally a piss poor season IMO. The team has played so bad at home there have been as many boos as cheers. The team has a season-high win streak of four games. The offense has been disgracefully bad, so bad at knocking in runners that the games are almost impossible to watch in their entireity. The team has sucked overall. Now if suddenly the team plays as it did in Minnesota the rest of the way, great. But that is not going to suddenly happen IMO. Flash back to May 6th. The team is 11-22. fill in the blank with what your thought would have been that day: "I think ______ would be an acceptable winning percentage over the next 80 games" 44-36 feels acceptable to me. Did you expect 50-30? 60-20? I did not feel as though this team was a 100-120 game winner at any point. I felt as though they were a low to mid 90s winner. Which means that 8 over .500 for 80 games is about where they should have been.

Yeah, I'm really sick of evaluating every single aspect of a baseball player based on OPS.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Aug 8, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) Fact of the matter is that we have 6 (yes, 6!) of the worst players in baseball at their respective positions getting significant playing time. I can't think of off the top of my head a team being so prohibitively handicapped by that many guys ever winning a division title. Save the sample size. Baseball tells you the truth 9.5 times out of 10. Are we evaluating everyone solely on OPS?

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Aug 8, 2011 -> 01:00 PM) The Sox have the fifth highest payroll in Major League Baseball, and as of today, they are three games under .500. I don't know how this has been anything but a piss-poor year. Their record simply hasn't piss-poor for most of the season. I don't know how to qualify it further. It's remarkable that so many baseball fans will scream SAMPLE SIZE!!!! and TREND!!!! when it's convenient to their argument, but then ignore their importance when it comes to something they disagree with. Looking at their aggregate record and evaluating it against their payroll feels myopic to me. For almost 3/4 of this season, they have been winning at a rate within 4-5 games of what many people expected them to win at (I feel as though most people expected a win rate of 93-94 games). A .550 winning percentage for half a season's worth of games. Disappointing? I guess maybe slightly. I never expected them to win at some superhuman rate, like they put up during interleague last year. I did expect them to bounce back from a horrid april and compete, and they have done so. 8 over for the last 80 feels about right to me and certainly doesn't fit "piss-poor".