http://espn.go.com/mlb/beanecount

 

Thought this was interesting...evidence of underachieving, I'm not sure.

 

Of course, if you go by the Pythagorean theory of runs scored versus runs allowed, we're around +14-16 over the entire season....which is exactly where we are now in the standings, 3 games over .500.

 

It does seem that if we come up short, we'll look at this 15 game stretch after the Buehrle no-hitter and say this is where we really needed to go 10-5 and get to ten games over .500 and pass the Tigers in order to survive the following 23 games (21 against tough teams, 17 of them on the road)...of course, DET could always do like Minnesota did last year and come back to us in the end.

 

The way we've been playing 2-1 against BALT seems most likely....you can never expect a sweep with this ballclub. That would put us at 4 games over .500...if we can go 11-12 over the next 23 (I think 10-13 or 9-14 is just as easily possible, but you never know with this team, and mental lift from the addition of Peavy should really help to give us some momentum, too) then we should still be in the thick of it heading into the final 2-3 weeks of the season when we start playing MN and the Tigers in the final week.

Edited August 20, 200916 yr by caulfield12

in answer to the thread, no. Pythagoras be damned

When healthy and playing well, we're absolutely in the discussion. In terms of best teams in the AL I'd put:

1 Yankees

2 Angels

3 Red Sox

4 Rays

5 Rangers

6 White Sox.

 

Adding the NL to this list

1 Yankees

2 Angels

3 Red Sox

4 Phillies

5 Dodgers

6 Rays

7 Rangers

8 White Sox

9 Cardinals

 

Edited August 20, 200916 yr by Thunderbolt

When healthy and playing well, we're absolutely in the discussion. I'd put:

1 Yankees

2 Angels

3 Red Sox

4 Rays

5 Rangers

6 White Sox.

"when" and thats not often,unfortunatley. the record says it all

We don't need to be one of 4 top teams in baseball. We need to be the best in a easy AL Central.

With Jake Peavy as a starting pitcher and our new 4 man outfield, we are on paper. But we've been saying how good we are on paper for so many years in the last decade the paper is looking like a 1970's newspaper.

our paper never had a Cy Young winner, 2 ROY candidates/winners, MVP candidate, and whatever Rios turns into.

One of the best 4 or 5 teams? Not right now. With Peavy and and a hot streak from Dye or Thome or Konerko etc...maybe.

Using Beane Count we were the best team in baseball last year, and were something like 12th in 2005. Cleveland was the best in baseball in 2007 and 2006. So I don't know how well that correlates.

 

If we had this team from Opening Day our record would probably be 4-6 games better. With the addition of Peavy into the rotation, we arguably have the best playoff rotation in baseball.

 

I still like our chances going forward, but we definitely need to get on a little run.

 

 

 

If the Sox make the playoffs, their chances are just as good as anyone else. It's 0 - 0 starting that first week in Oct. It doesn't matter what power ranking they are right now, the only goal is make the postseason where stranger crap has happened over the last 20 yrs.

I think most of us diehards on here realize we're not that good.

Like somebody said beautifully, one facet of our game usually falls apart bad enough to cost us a win on a given night.

I think most of us diehards on here realize we're not that good.

Like somebody said beautifully, one facet of our game usually falls apart bad enough to cost us a win on a given night.

Why do you generalize so much? Who is "most of us diehards"? According to THIS, I'd say everyone thinks we can be damn good.

Sorry if I misinterpreted. If I could summarize most of the things I've read, I'd say most realize we are a severely flawed team. I thought that was a correct interpretation.

My bad if I am wrong.

 

In the underachiever thread it was 90-20 people saying we were underachievers. I figured that it was safe to say "most" after reading that thread.

Edited August 20, 200916 yr by greg775

our paper never had a Cy Young winner, 2 ROY candidates/winners, MVP candidate, and whatever Rios turns into.

 

and who is this?

Sorry if I misinterpreted. If I could summarize most of the things I've read, I'd say most realize we are a severely flawed team. I thought that was a correct interpretation.

My bad if I am wrong.

 

In the underachiever thread it was 90-20 people saying we were underachievers. I figured that it was safe to say "most" after reading that thread.

Explain how we are severely flawed

our paper never had a Cy Young winner, 2 ROY candidates/winners, MVP candidate, and whatever Rios turns into.

 

 

and who is this?

 

DeWayne Wise of course.

Sorry if I misinterpreted. If I could summarize most of the things I've read, I'd say most realize we are a severely flawed team. I thought that was a correct interpretation.

My bad if I am wrong.

 

In the underachiever thread it was 90-20 people saying we were underachievers. I figured that it was safe to say "most" after reading that thread.

 

I agree that the Sox are a flawed team. However, if the Sox make it into the playoffs, they could do some damage because of: Buerhle, Floyd, Danks and Peavy.

 

Explain how we are severely flawed

 

Ok.

• Below average defense. I guess some might say average. I'd say below average.

• Unreliable middle relief, i.e. set up men.

• Slow on basepaths still.

• Don't have the "it" factor to rally late or beat bad teams in an attempt to get 10 over .500 which would win this division.

• 3 good starting pitchers, though what is up with Mark since the perfect game?; Jose and No. 5 very poor.

Explain how we are severely flawed

 

Can't play defense, can't manufacture runs, poor overall team speed, weak back-end of the rotation, etc.

 

Jenks and Thornton are the only dudes in the bullpen that have WHIP ratios under 1.30, but I'm not ready to say that our pen is severely flawed. It's pretty scary when you analyze the numbers, though. Dotel is walking damn near 7 batters per 9 IP.

 

The Peavy and Rios acquisitions got me amped, but I'm still not a huge fan of our current team make-up.

 

Looking forward to next year, though.

When healthy and playing well, we're absolutely in the discussion. I'd put:

1 Yankees

2 Angels

3 Red Sox

4 Rays

5 Rangers

6 White Sox.

 

I'd probably throw the top baseball teams in this order

 

1 Yankees

2 Angels

3 Red Sox

4 Rays

5 Rangers

6 White Sox

7 Detroit

8 Twins

9 Mariners

10 Jays

11 Indians

12 A's

13 Orioles

14 Royals

15 Durham Bulls

16 Scranton Yanks

17 Rochester Red Wings

18 Toledo Mud Hens

19 LA Dodgers

20 Philadelphia Phillies

21 St. Louis Cardinals

...............

Edited August 20, 200916 yr by Markbilliards

• Below average defense. I guess some might say average. I'd say below average.

 

The defense is tremendously bad. The Polish guy is the only one that has brains listed as a strength.

 

It's great to have Rios in CF, though. We need a dude with great range to cover for major defensive liabilities in Quentin and Dye.

I don't think we're in the top 10. Gotta go with the record as of now and the record says barely over .500

When healthy and playing well, we're absolutely in the discussion. I'd put:

1 Yankees

2 Angels

3 Red Sox

4 Rays

5 Rangers

6 White Sox.

 

Do you think the top 6 teams in baseball are all in the American League?

Edited August 20, 200916 yr by WilliamTell

Do you think the top 6 teams in baseball are all in the American League?

No, I’ll amend the post and add the NL to it. I kind of spaced, but yeah the Dodgers and the Phillies are definitely above the Rangers, Rays and White Sox.

DeWayne Wise of course.

 

 

GQCQ last year of course.