June 30, 201114 yr but then again.... 1993 White Sox first 81 games 42-39 last 81 games 52-29 Just sayin'. I had forgotten how mediocre their start was and how hot they got in the second half. Just sayin'
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 11:46 PM) but then again.... 1993 White Sox first 81 games 42-39 last 81 games 52-29 Just sayin'. I had forgotten how mediocre their start was and how hot they got in the second half. Just sayin' They've never been a second half team under Ozzie for some reason, but they were a great second half team under Manuel. The Royals were up like 7 games at the All-Star Break in 2003 and the Sox passed them pretty handily, finishing with the second best record in the AL in the second half of that year. Problem of course was that the goddamn Twins had the best record, and then naturally blew it in the playoffs.
June 30, 201114 yr We weren't a good first half team this season. But if guys like Dunn, Rios, Pierre and Beckham can get back up during the second half, we would easily top our first half winning % in the second half.
June 30, 201114 yr There's the theory. Besides Konerko, Humber, AJ and Lillibridge, the odds are better that almost all of our players will be BETTER than they were in the first half. Of course, the possibility of injury (or reinjury in Peavy's case) is always there, we've been very very healthy for most of the way compared to DET, CLE and Minnesota. The schedule is weighted more towards our AL Central opponents and also more home games. However, we haven't played well at home, Dunn will continue to get booed there if he doesn't hit or get injured/DL'ed somehow...and obviously we have to beat DET and MIN head-to-head and continue to play at least "even" with Cleveland. I still don't see how 1983 or 1993 or 2003 has anything to do with this year's team. 2008-2010 are probably much more relevant for this current group of players. Our results during that timeframe in the 2nd half are at best, spotty. Obviously room for lots of improvement, but they're going to have to break through their mental "blocks" against the Central, there's no getting around it. Edited June 30, 201114 yr by caulfield12
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 12:08 AM) We weren't a good first half team this season. But if guys like Dunn, Rios, Pierre and Beckham can get back up during the second half, we would easily top our first half winning % in the second half. As long as the pitching holds up.
June 30, 201114 yr They haven't been a second half team since the the park became hitter-friendly, '03? The pitching has worn down, hopefully the 6-man rotation alleviates some of that wear and tear. Also, 2nd half schedule doesn't seem as tough this year as in years past.
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 07:24 AM) As long as the pitching holds up. Out of the starters, the only one how has really overachieved is Phil. Even looking up and down the team, who is due for a regression? Konerko I could see, just because he has been insane. AJ maybe? Very few guys have played anywhere near their best ball.
June 30, 201114 yr Nothing seems right this season so far. So maybe the usually not so good second half Sox will be good the second half. I think Cleveland and Detroit will both have bad second halves. That has also been the Tiger's trend of late and Cleveland can be overtaken. The Sox play the division teams alot in July after the break. This will tell the story. If the Twins don't get their stars back then? Why not us?
June 30, 201114 yr Final 81 breakdown to a divsion championship: (1) Col 1-0 (3) Cubs 2-1 (4) Bal 3-1 (3) Bos 2-1 (4) NY 2-2 (3) Tor 2-1 (2) LAA 1-1 (3) Sea 1-2 (3) Tex 2-1 Outside the division: 16-10 (13) Cle 8-5 (12) Det 7-5 (16) KC 10-6 (14) Min 8-6 Inside the division: 33-22 Basically win today, and then win 6 of 10 the rest of the season. 49-32 second half. Finish 88-74. Edited June 30, 201114 yr by flavum
June 30, 201114 yr Author I guess the most "encouraging" thing is that our stats seem much more in line with the 2005 corpseball edition than the recent 07-10 editions. The pitching stats seem better and the hitting much worse. I'm with the people who say it's hard to imagine this team playing worse. And yet, somehow playing our worst means 3 games under .500 and 4 games out.
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:57 AM) I guess the most "encouraging" thing is that our stats seem much more in line with the 2005 corpseball edition than the recent 07-10 editions. The pitching stats seem better and the hitting much worse. Again...worth adding is the comparison to the rest of the league. I'm harping on this a lot lately...but offense is way, way, way down everywhere. In 2005, the White Sox staff put up a 3.61 ERA, and that was tied with Cleveland for the best in the AL, Houston and St. Louis were better, and the best ERA in the league was 3.49. In 2011, the White Sox staff has put up a 3.84 ERA, and that's good for 14th best in baseball (strangely, 13th best is Cleveland, 0.01 runs better than us). The best ERA in the league is 2.98. The average ERA this year is 3.83, in 2005 it was 4.28. Offense is down. A lot. Hawk was noting last night I think that he's never seen so many 2-1 and 1-0 games. For once, he's right, we haven't seen this level of offensive performance since baseball got "Big".
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:10 AM) Again...worth adding is the comparison to the rest of the league. I'm harping on this a lot lately...but offense is way, way, way down everywhere. In 2005, the White Sox staff put up a 3.61 ERA, and that was tied with Cleveland for the best in the AL, Houston and St. Louis were better, and the best ERA in the league was 3.49. In 2011, the White Sox staff has put up a 3.84 ERA, and that's good for 14th best in baseball (strangely, 13th best is Cleveland, 0.01 runs better than us). The best ERA in the league is 2.98. The average ERA this year is 3.83, in 2005 it was 4.28. Offense is down. A lot. Hawk was noting last night I think that he's never seen so many 2-1 and 1-0 games. For once, he's right, we haven't seen this level of offensive performance since baseball got "Big". Hawk played during the 60's right? Um, yeah, about that...
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 09:12 AM) Hawk played during the 60's right? Um, yeah, about that... I'm assuming he doesn't remember that era all that well. I've listened to enough stories to be confident about that.
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:13 AM) I'm assuming he doesn't remember that era all that well. I've listened to enough stories to be confident about that. Some nights I think that is all he remembers.
June 30, 201114 yr Author QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:10 AM) Again...worth adding is the comparison to the rest of the league. I'm harping on this a lot lately...but offense is way, way, way down everywhere. In 2005, the White Sox staff put up a 3.61 ERA, and that was tied with Cleveland for the best in the AL, Houston and St. Louis were better, and the best ERA in the league was 3.49. In 2011, the White Sox staff has put up a 3.84 ERA, and that's good for 14th best in baseball (strangely, 13th best is Cleveland, 0.01 runs better than us). The best ERA in the league is 2.98. The average ERA this year is 3.83, in 2005 it was 4.28. Offense is down. A lot. Hawk was noting last night I think that he's never seen so many 2-1 and 1-0 games. For once, he's right, we haven't seen this level of offensive performance since baseball got "Big". fair point, but I think we should talk in terms of AL only, because NL eras are so different. They are 7th best in the AL this season, and .01 away from 6th best.
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 09:45 AM) fair point, but I think we should talk in terms of AL only, because NL eras are so different. They are 7th best in the AL this season, and .01 away from 6th best. And in 2005, they were tied for the best in the AL, with the best starting pitching.
June 30, 201114 yr Do we have the ABILITY to be one of the best staffs in the AL? Sure, we said that before the season without even factoring in Humber's contribution. It's going to have to come from Danks, Floyd and Jackson...and Peavy actually staying healthy for a full half. If you put up their W-L records and ERA at this point in the season, nobody would believe we'd be 4 GB, along with the stat lines for Thornton, Beckham, Dunn, Rios and Pierre's own SB/CS fiasco after leading the AL in thefts last season. Humber and Buehrle are both pitching to the best of their ability, or probably over it in Humber's case.
June 30, 201114 yr Author I wonder how much of our team ERA is attributable to bullpen blowups. I'm not saying that's justified, but we are in the top five in QS, and just three shy of the AL lead.
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 10:40 AM) I wonder how much of our team ERA is attributable to bullpen blowups. I'm not saying that's justified, but we are in the top five in QS, and just three shy of the AL lead. We're 7th in the AL in total ERA, and 7th in the AL in starters ERA. Our bullpen ERA is 10th. The fun numbers though...total ERA for the Sox is 3.84. Starters ERA is .... 3.84. Bullpen ERA is...3.85.
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:10 AM) Again...worth adding is the comparison to the rest of the league. I'm harping on this a lot lately...but offense is way, way, way down everywhere. In 2005, the White Sox staff put up a 3.61 ERA, and that was tied with Cleveland for the best in the AL, Houston and St. Louis were better, and the best ERA in the league was 3.49. In 2011, the White Sox staff has put up a 3.84 ERA, and that's good for 14th best in baseball (strangely, 13th best is Cleveland, 0.01 runs better than us). The best ERA in the league is 2.98. The average ERA this year is 3.83, in 2005 it was 4.28. Offense is down. A lot. Hawk was noting last night I think that he's never seen so many 2-1 and 1-0 games. For once, he's right, we haven't seen this level of offensive performance since baseball got "Big". Whoa, who's at 2.98?
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 09:55 AM) Whoa, who's at 2.98? No one that I can see. Oakland leads the way at 3.10 in the AL.
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 04:46 AM) but then again.... 1993 White Sox first 81 games 42-39 last 81 games 52-29 Just sayin'. I had forgotten how mediocre their start was and how hot they got in the second half. Just sayin' Plus 1983 was good. It can be done. Precictions are so hard to predict Edited June 30, 201114 yr by elrockinMT
June 30, 201114 yr QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 07:59 AM) No one that I can see. Oakland leads the way at 3.10 in the AL. Philly did have a sub .3 ERA as of like a week ago. Not sure if that is still the case or not.
June 30, 201114 yr While it is nice to think the White Sox can/will play better, if their starting pitching or bullpen falter, they certainly can play worse. There is no guarantee this offense will play better and if Quentin and Konerko falter the second half will be dismal. Over the last 7 games the White Sox had a very good chance to be 7-0 based on pitching. Due to inept hittingthey were 4-3. That has been the season since day 1 and it may change but if the pitching regresses, it could be worse. As I havethought all year. This team could hit .300 or hit .100. They are woefully inconsistent to have any expectations other than a 80 to 84 win season.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.