The Great Bridgeport Collapse of 2012

[whitesoxfan]

My point exactly. I would be pissed off if I were the Dodgers and St.Louis
got to play the Cubs and Astros 32 times a year.

[tony la]

I know....not when he was with the sox

[Bonster]

My point exactly. I would be pissed off if I were the Dodgers and St.Louis
got to play the Cubs and Astros 32 times a year.

As if San Diego and Colorado are worth a shit.

[The Jackal]

My point exactly. I would be pissed off if I were the Dodgers and St.Louis
got to play the Cubs and Astros 32 times a year.

See Bonsters post. You make NO point. We all agree that in every division in baseball outside of the al west, the top teams get to play 36 "easy" games against crap teams. No question about about that. The issue though is that Detroit and Bridgeport get to play EIGHTEEN more games against crap teams by virtue of that third garbage team in the AL Central. Not sure why that's so hard to comprehend.

[Bonster]

My point exactly. I would be pissed off if I were the Dodgers and St.Louis
got to play the Cubs and Astros 32 times a year.

See Bonsters post. You make NO point. We all agree that in every division in baseball outside of the al west, the top teams get to play 36 "easy" games against crap teams. No question about about that. The issue though is that Detroit and Bridgeport get to play EIGHTEEN more games against crap teams by virtue of that third garbage team in the AL Central. Not sure why that's so hard to comprehend.

19, and the sox get six more against the Cubs.  They should be the perennial division winners by wsf's logic!

[whitesoxfan]

Huge difference. San Diego needed 6 more wins to be 500 Cubs needed 20.

I'm not sure if I've got my point across. I 100% understand your arguement, I get it.

It DOESN'T change the fact that everyone in your
division gets to play against minor league Talant  more then anyone else in baseball

[The Jackal]

No you don't...for the rest of the NL Central, there are only 36 SOFT interdivision games. In the AL Central, there are 54. Its an 18 game difference. Not sure why that's such a difficult concept for you. Its a matter of quantity.

[whitesoxfan]

Yes but you also don't have to play as many games against the tougher divisions because you get to play each other so much. Are you really, really serious that you would rather play the Indians, Royals and Twins 54 times or play the Astros, Cubs and Pirates (who have a combined 11 less wins) 48 times?

[The Jackal]

Yes, I'm very serious, because taking the CUMULATIVE won loss record of the bottom three NL Central teams is grossly misleading because the astros and cubs were so bad and accumulated so many losses themselves. The Pirates were a pretty decent and competitive team virtually all year. Neither the Royals, Indians or Twins were. The Pirates were not an "easy" game for anyone. The Royals, Indians, Twins, Cubs and Astros were. As such, it makes 54 "easy" games in the AL Central as opposed to 36 "easy" games in the NL Central. BIG difference.

[Bonster]

For the sox it's 60 games!

18 CLE
18 KC
18 MIN
  6 Cubs
60

(not sure where I got 63 before)

[Bonster]

Are you really, really serious that you would rather play the Indians, Royals and Twins 54 times or play the Astros, Cubs and Pirates (who have a combined 11 less wins) 48 times?

If you're the Sox, DEFINITELY.  Their stellar 1-2 record against the worst team in baseball is testament to that.   They even blew a series to the Cubs, LOL. 
Man, that's the division right there!

[whitesoxfan]

I'm through. you will never get it. In all honesty, it doesn't matter. I will go on rooting for a team that tries to compete every year and actually has won something in my lifetime. You can go around a be the lovable losers the rest of your life. keep blaming goats, black cats and actual fans for your losing ways. 

For every loss that the Cubs contribute to the winner of their division and the NL wildcard next year, I will just sit there and think how lucky those teams are to get to play the Cubs so many times per year.

[Bonster]

I'm through. you will never get it.

No,  YOU don't get it.  Not sure what you fail to understand about the number 60.  Hell, make it 63, which would includes SIX more games against the Astros and Cubs than the Tigers had.    YET, the Tigers won 43 of 72 games within the division while the sox lost series on their LUCKY schedule to the Cubs AND the Astros.

SO, so bitter.

[The Jackal]

Tries to compete? Compete for what? How is being in the BOTTOM HALF of your own league TRYING TO COMPETE? If that's your definition of trying then I suggest you try, try again!!!

[whitesoxfan]

  Our strength of schedule was 14 out of 30 teams, Detroit's was 13 out of 30. that means we had the 13th and 14th hardest schedules in mlb. The Brewers (30), Reds (29), Cards(28) and Pittsburgh (27) had the 4 easiest schedules in baseball.

It doesn't matter whatever stats you come up with, they had the easiest paths to a winning record. With a wayyyyy easier division.

There is nothing bitter about it. Those are the numbers.

We competed the whole season. We were in 1st place almost the whole year. Sorry if that bothers you

[The Jackal]

What in Gods name does strength of schedule and the Brewers, Cards, Reds and Pirates have to do with anything?

#1 Strength of schedule needs to be evalutaed based on the formula being used to rank teams. My guess is that the forumla being used utilized CUMULATIVE wins and losses of opponents, which once again is misleading because it doesn't take into account the amount of games played against weak opponents. Of course the Brewers, Cards, Reds and Pirates are in the bottom four of strength of schedule because they played the two worst teams in baseball with over 200 losses between them 36 times.  Even of the Cubs and Astros had 200 + losses between them, the other terams in their division played them 36 times. The Sox played the terrible trio 54 times. But, since you put inappropriate weight in CUMULATIVE losses, the abysmal record of the Cubs and Astros skews the actual strength/weakness of your division.

#2. The Sox don't compete against the Reds, Cards, Brewers and Pirates. You evaluate the sox comparing their schedule to other AL, not NL, teams.

[whitesoxfan]

Maybe I'm missing something here.  Your point was the Sox and Tigers were the ONLY teams in BASEBALL  that had the luxury of playing 3 of the weakest teams a total of 54 times. Was it not?



I never said that the Sox and Tigers didn't have an easier path then the rest of the AL. I said that IN ALL OF BASEBALL, though it may appear that the SOX and Tigers had the easiest path, the NL Central teams had a way easier path. I still say that and it is true.

[watcher]

Maybe I'm missing something here.  Your point was the Sox and Tigers were the ONLY teams in BASEBALL  that had the luxury of playing 3 of the weakest teams a total of 54 times. Was it not?



I never said that the Sox and Tigers didn't have an easier path then the rest of the AL. I said that IN ALL OF BASEBALL, though it may appear that the SOX and Tigers had the easiest path, the NL Central teams had a way easier path. I still say that and it is true.

111 days until Soxfest 2013

[buzz]

  there's always next year....

[SimplyBerwyn]

For the life of me, I don't understand why everybody is still arguing about the Cubs and the White Sox.  The season is over-Sox had a better record than the Cubs, yet they are both at home watching the playoffs.

The White Sox seem to compete more often than not for the Division title, which is more than anyone can say about the Cubs.  Easier schedule doesn't really matter, you either have the talent (provided by the front office, farm system etc) or you don't.

Just because the Cubs draw more saps to Wrigley Field than the White Sox do to Comiskey doesn't mean a hill of beans.