The Great Bridgeport Collapse of 2012

[whitesoxfan]

The Reds won over 50% of their games (49 wins) playing their own division. If you have a division with THE TWO worst teams in baseball, the rest of the teams in the division  are going to benefit greatly (all of them).  If every team could in our division could play Morton high school and Morton College 36 times, we wouldn't be so bad.  The National league central  has 6 teams, 3 of which were under 500. So you are comparing apples to oranges. There is no way that we can know if we would have a fourth team under 500 or a third team over 500.

I never said the 15th best team would win the World Series.

We were 7-8 against Tampa and LA this year, they are  hardly flat out better.


Look no further then your great savior Theo. He built the Red Sox of course to beat the Yankees. Every move he made was to Win that division. Aquiring players so the Yankees couldn't get them and also signing players that the Yankees had trouble against.

If the best team in your division is stacked with left handed batters, your going to try and get some lefties that can get them out. I really don't have the time to go over basic stuff here.

Of course you want to win 1 five game series and 2 seven game series but your goal is to get there 1st.

[The Jackal]

The Reds won over 50% of their games (49 wins) playing their own division. If you have a division with THE TWO worst teams in baseball, the rest of the teams in the division  are going to benefit greatly (all of them).  If every team could in our division could play Morton high school and Morton College 36 times, we wouldn't be so bad.  The National league central  has 6 teams, 3 of which were under 500. So you are comparing apples to oranges. There is no way that we can know if we would have a fourth team under 500 or a third team over 500.

I never said the 15th best team would win the World Series.

We were 7-8 against Tampa and LA this year, they are  hardly flat out better.


Look no further then your great savior Theo. He built the Red Sox of course to beat the Yankees. Every move he made was to Win that division. Aquiring players so the Yankees couldn't get them and also signing players that the Yankees had trouble against.

If the best team in your division is stacked with left handed batters, your going to try and get some lefties that can get them out. I really don't have the time to go over basic stuff here.

Of course you want to win 1 five game series and 2 seven game series but your goal is to get there 1st.

I'm not so sure why this is so hard to comprehend, even for Bridgeportites. The Black Sox played ONE THIRD of their schedule against teams that were 18, 26 and 30 games under .500 respectively. There is NO OTHER team in baseball, outside of Detroit, that had such good fortune. And that is so ONLY becuase they play in the AL Central.

The NL Central, on the other hand, has only TWO such poor teams, meaning the Reds, Cards, Brewers and Pirates each played 36 games against those two. BIG difference between 36 and 54. You can't simply state the NL Central had three teams undeer .500 as well because that stat is highly misleading. The Pirates were over .500 (and in contention) for most of the year and fell to 4 games under only at the tail end when they tanked it.

Morton High and Morton JC you say? Hey, look no further than Minnesota and Cleveland....LOL!!!!! You can throw in St. Leaonards (KC) as well as an added bonus.

I'm really not sure where you get this "I build my team to win a division" nonsense comes from, especially when you can get into the playoffs via a wild card and since a long term move/commitment with solely your division rival in mind can handcuff you for years to come. The Red Sox made moves to counter the Yanks primarily because that's the nature of their rivalry. I lived in NY, I think I should know. The Red Sox built their team (and most gms follow suit) primarily to conform to their park, where they play 81 games, and not necessarily to combat the Yanks, who they only play 18 times. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining elementary math to you.

[The Jackal]

Oh, and btw, when it mattered most.....whne the games actually meant something down the stretch, Bridgeport went 1-6 against Tampa and LA, BOTH of whom finished with better records. That's ALL you need to know about the THIRD PLACE teams in the AL East and West and how Bridgeport stacks up accordingly. The fact is, Bridgeport had the EIGTH best record in the 14 team AL. How a team in the lower half of their own league has serious playoff/WS aspirations is beyond me.

[SimplyBerwyn]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the prediction for the White Sox dire this year?  They weren't even supposed to compete, right?

Oh and second place is still better than last place and losing 100 games.  In my opinion, the team that wins the WS is the only real winner.

[whitesoxfan]

Oh, and btw, when it mattered most.....whne the games actually meant something down the stretch, Bridgeport went 1-6 against Tampa and LA, BOTH of whom finished with better records. That's ALL you need to know about the THIRD PLACE teams in the AL East and West and how Bridgeport stacks up accordingly. The fact is, Bridgeport had the EIGTH best record in the 14 team AL. How a team in the lower half of their own league has serious playoff/WS aspirations is beyond me.

This is why I stated that I stopped arguing with Cubs fans long ago and somehow I find myself back in the mix. Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in. Let's get down to the basics here. I remember AGREEING that the Sox choked down the stretch. I also remember you using Sept. 19th as a starting point. Well, as of that date we were 5th best in the AL record wise and 1st in division. As of that date, pretty late in the season I might add, the Sox make the playoffs in any scenario, even if you take the division crown away. SO  you are saying that we were crazy to have playoff aspirations?  Also at that point, we would of had a good enough record to make the NL playoffs.

You were the one that used that date as a starting point. We both agreed that they choked after that. They hit their first real slump of the year. They were tired. Once again we have a fan of the original Chicago White Stockings zoning in about what the White Sox did instead of worrying about the White Stockings losing 101 games.

You should be worried about the mess on the North side and the possibility of losing 100 games again. Perhaps you can find another cheater to cork his bat, take steroids and drive player market value up even higher  then your golden boy Sosa did in his day. Next year, the worst team in baseball comes to the American League and your division will only have the second worst team in baseball to beat up on.

[Bonster]

I will not discount the Pirates slide - most of it was within the division, and Cincy did feast on them in September.   Still, the difference in wins between the bottom three in each Central division is only four games, and the white sox play a greater percentage of their games against those bottom three since they make up 3/5ths of their division.   

[The Jackal]

The whole point is, every division in baseball (except for the four team AL West) has two very weak teams. By very weak, I don't mean sides like the Pirates who are at or around .500. I mean teams like the Royals, Cubs, Indians, Astros, and Twins. Every division (exclude AL West)  has TWO of those....except for the AL Central, which has THREE. With the unbalanced schedule, that means the Tigers and Sox got a chance to clobber a very weak team EIGHTEEN more times during the regular season than anybody else in baseball. That's a HUGE difference. Especially when ONE THIRD of your TOTAL schedule is played against the Little Sisters of the Poor.

As for Sosa, well we DID get him from Bridgeport, didn't we? LOL!!! Once he gets done corking his bats he might be able to help Albert Belle conceal them in one of the Cell clubhouses. You remember "Joey" Belle, don't you? LOL!

FWIW, I seriously hope we lose 100 again next year. That's the whole idea. You know it and I know it. But, at this point, its the only thing you have to hang your hat on. Good luck with all that.

[whitesoxfan]

The difference between the two bottom 3 is 11 games. I don't think my point is being made here. IF you take the absolute worst 2 teams in baseball, aka Morton High school and Morton JC, and put them in any division, the rest of the division has a much better advantage then the divisions that don't have them in the division and don't get to play them as much.

I am not saying that the White Sox don't have a poor division, I am saying that even though we have teams that are poorer then us, we don't have the luxury of facing the absolute worst in the league 16-18 times per year.

The Cubs let the rest of the NL central go 50-31 against them and the Astros let the NL Central go 50 and 29 against them. They were baaaaaaaaaaaaad. Hense the better records in the rest of the division.

[The Jackal]

Its simple math my friend. There are 12 "very weak" teams in baseball. My starting point for "very weak" is, in this case, the 10 games below .500 Padres. Of those twelve teams, three are in the AL Central. Its irrelevant as to HOW BAD each of these teams is.  As a "contender", you don't get to play any of these very weak teams any more or less times based on HOW BAD they are. For example, the Sox don't play don't play Minnesota more times than KC because the Twins are worse than the Royals. A BAD TEAM is a BAD TEAM, one that a good team should beat, irrespective of actually HOW bad they are. As such, the Black Sox had 54 games against BAD teams. Only the Tigers had that many. The next highest total is 36....an 18 game difference. Taking the cumulative loss total of the teams in the NL Central is misleading and deceptive because it doesn't change the AMOUNT of times the top teams in the NL Central played them. In other words, irrespective of HOW BAD the Cubs and Astros were, the fact remains that the Reds played only 36 games, max,  against such weak competition. I'm sure you can figure this out. 

[The Jackal]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the prediction for the White Sox dire this year?  They weren't even supposed to compete, right?

Oh and second place is still better than last place and losing 100 games.  In my opinion, the team that wins the WS is the only real winner.

Exactly. Precisely. They WEREN'T supposed to compete......and wouldn't have in ANY other division except for the pathetic AL Central. THAT was the whole point. Thanks for illustrating it.

So if the ONLY real winner is the WS champ, you would agree that BOTH the beloved and the Black Sox are losers this year, no?

[Ted]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the prediction for the White Sox dire this year?  They weren't even supposed to compete, right?

The pre-season prediction was that the White sox would lose 95 games.

[The Jackal]

I predicted 84 wins for the Sox and 60 wins for the Cubs. What I didn't/couldn't predict was how decidedly mediocre Detroit would be for most of the year.

[Bonster]

The difference between the two bottom 3 is 11 games.  I don't think my point is being made here.

You're making your point, it's just not a good one.

I was talking wins, performance.
The bottom 3 in the ALC have a grand total of FOUR more wins than their NLC counterparts.  Hence, beating on "the two worst teams in baseball" was, well, weak, at best, since you play EVERYONE in the division. 

Sure, the two worst teams in the AL: CLE and MIN, have better records than CHI and HOU in the NL, but Pittsburgh was significantly better than KC.  Flush them all out and the difference is negligible.  Furthermore, the bottom three make up 3/5ths of the ALC as opposed to only 1/2 of the NLC, so the Sox get to play the fluff that much more than the Reds, who you alluded to.  That's a 63 to 50 game advantage, Sox!  LOL

[Bonster]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the prediction for the White Sox dire this year?  They weren't even supposed to compete, right?

The pre-season prediction was that the White sox would lose 95 games.

Show me where you predicted 95 games.

[Ted]

Show me where you predicted 95 games.

I didn't.  Sports Illustrated did:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/baseball/mlb/03/28/si.mlb.2012.preview/index.html


CENTRAL Division Preview 
Detroit Tigers         93-69 
Kansas City Royals    82-80 
Cleveland Indians     80-82 
Minnesota Twins       72-90 
Chicago White Sox    67-95

[watcher]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the prediction for the White Sox dire this year?  They weren't even supposed to compete, right?

Oh and second place is still better than last place and losing 100 games.  In my opinion, the team that wins the WS is the only real winner.

Exactly. Precisely. They WEREN'T supposed to compete......and wouldn't have in ANY other division except for the pathetic AL Central. THAT was the whole point. Thanks for illustrating it.

So if the ONLY real winner is the WS champ, you would agree that BOTH the beloved and the Black Sox are losers this year, no?

Only 3 AL teams weren't over .500 in interleague play. 10 of the 16 NL teams were under .500 against AL.
Over 10 years, the AL has played almost .600 ball against the NL. Factored to a 162 game season, that'd be 92 wins a year. The Reds and Giants were 7-8 this year, but won their respective divisions.

The 3 AL teams below .500 were each 8-10. Still, the Royals managed to sweep the Brewers and their former Ace Zach Grienke.

As a Sox fan, I HATE playing KC and the Twinkies who seem to trot out Cy Freakin' Young to face us every time, with a batting order of .500 hitters!

"Baseball is ninety percent mental. The other half is physical."

[Bonster]

Show me where you predicted 95 games.

I didn't.  Sports Illustrated did:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/baseball/mlb/03/28/si.mlb.2012.preview/index.html


CENTRAL Division Preview 
Detroit Tigers         93-69 
Kansas City Royals    82-80 
Cleveland Indians     80-82 
Minnesota Twins       72-90 
Chicago White Sox    67-95

LOL.  Oh boy.  They also predicted the Cubs to win the Series a couple times.

[The Jackal]

Watcher,

I have no idea what interleague play has to do with what I posted. The Sox are competing for a division and/or playoff spot with other AL teams, not the Brewers, Cubs, Astros or anybody else in the NL. As such, they were one of only TWO teams in the 14 team AL that had the good fortune of playing the terrible trio 54 times a year. THAT was the whole point.

[The Jackal]

Put another way, I'd be mighty pissed if I were the Rangers or Orioles. The O's get the Rays, Jays, and Red Sox 54 times a year and the Rangers get the A's, Angels and Mariners 54 times a year. Hardly an even swap. And yet these teams are all competing for the same wildcard spot(s).

[tony la]

The great thing about this game is no matter who you have.  What record you got.  You still have to play the game and nothing is guarnteed.   Except Albert Bell had a corked bat too.